Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/financialhistoryOOholliala 


THE  FINANCIAL  HISTORY 
OF  BALTIMORE 


The  Financial  History 


OF  Baltimore 


BY 


J.  H.  HOLLANDER,  Ph.  D. 

ASSOCIATE  IN  ECONOMICS  IN  THE  JOHNS  HOPKINS  UNIVERSITY 


BALTIMORE 

THE  JOHNS  HOPKINS  PRESS 
1899 


Copyright,  1899,  by 

N.  MURRAY 


C^e  Bovi  (^Eaftimore  (pttee 

THE  FRIEDENWALD  COMPANY 
BALTIMORB,    MD.,    U.  S.  A. 


TO 

MY  MOTHER, 

WHOSE  INTEREST    AND    SYMPATHY    HAVE    ACCOMPANIED 

ITS  PROGRESS,    THIS    BOOK    IS    INSCRIBED 

IN    LOVE  AND  DEVOTION 


PREFACE 

The  neglect  of  municipal  economics  by  students  of  public 
finance  is  due  in  large  part  to  the  character  of  the  subject- 
matter.  The  choice  of  the  investigator  is  between  crass 
and  threadbare  secondary  materials,  and  crude  and  inac- 
cessible primary  sources.  In  both  of  these  directions 
marked  improvement  is  promised  within  the  next  few  years. 
Yet  it  seems  likely  that  until  essential  data  have  been  di- 
gested and  arranged  in  a  series  of  detailed  monographs 
tracing  the  financial  development  and  describing  the  finan- 
cial status  of  representative  American  cities,  there  can  be 
no  comprehensive  study  of  many  of  the  most  important 
aspects  of  municipal  finance. 

The  prime  purpose  of  the  present  monograph  is  to  con- 
tribute to  this  end.  In  many  respects  the  financial  history 
of  Baltimore  is  typical  of  that  of  the  ordinary  American  mu- 
nicipality, and  details  of  local  experience  will  be  of  value 
in  subsequent  generalizations,.  Where  a  distinctive  munici- 
pal policy  has  been'  pursued,  as  with  respect  to  works  of 
internal  improvement  or  street  railway  franchises,  the  re- 
sults are  interesting  and  instructive. 

The  investigation,  although  limited  in  scope,  has  been 
arduous.  The  absence  of  any  detailed  administrative  study 
or  even  of  any  adequate  municipal  history  of  Baltimore  has 
added  much  to  the  task.  In  crudeness  of  arrangement  and 
in  defectiveness  of  detail,  the  municipal  reports  of  Balti- 
more are  unsurpassed  by  those  of  any  American  city.     The 

(vn) 


VIII  PREFACE 

financial  operations  of  the  city  have  always  been  presented 
in  the  form  of  book-keeping  accounts,  instead  of  classified 
aggregates.  This  has  made  the  mere  determination  of 
actual  receipts  and  expenditures  in  any  one  year  a  matter 
of  laborious  compilation  and  arbitrary  apportionment  of 
several  hundred  items  varying  in  amount  from  a  few  pennies 
to  millions  of  dollars.  An  annual  tabulation  of  receipts  and 
expenditures  has  been  attempted  for  each  year  up  to  1835 — 
thereafter,  owing  to  the  multiplication  of  entries,  at  quin- 
quennial intervals.  The  assignment  of  contradictory  and 
insufficiently  described  items  has  involved  the  exercise  of 
personal  judgment,  and  probably  no  two  persons,  proceed- 
ing independently,  would  have  attained  identical  results. 
Yet  the  statistical  tables,  added  as  appendices,  will  serve 
the  purpose  of  indicating  the  quantitative  course  of  financial 
development,  and  have  made  it  possible  to  confine  the  text 
proper  to  descriptive  detail.  The  classification  of  public 
revenues  proposed  by  Professor  E.  R.  A.  Seligman  has 
been  employed  with  no  essential  modification.  In  the  case 
of  expenditure,  an  empirical  arrangement,  corresponding  in 
the  main  to  the  historical  development  of  municipal  func- 
tions, has  been  found  more  serviceable  than  the  elaborate 
classifications  suggested  by  recent  writers  as  the  basis  of 
municipal  accounting. 

If  the  range  of  documentary  materials  has  been  limited, 
the  number  of  persons  who  in  one  way  or  another  have 
aided  the  study  has  been  large.  The  financial  officers  of 
the  city  under  successive  administrations  have  spared  no 
pains  to  make  accessible  the  limited  historical  resources  of 
their  several  departments.  Suggestion  and  encouragement 
have  been  received  at  every  stage  of  the  inquiry  from  Pro- 
fessor Herbert  B.  Adams  of  the  Johns  Hopkins  University. 


PREFACE  IX 

Hon,.  Ferdinand  C.  Latrobe  has  discussed  many  phases  of 
the  work  in  the  light  of  a  long  and  intimate  acquaintance 
with  municipal  affairs.  Hon.  Thomas  G.  Hayes  has  made 
repeated  sacrifices  of  time  and  effort  to  elucidate  legal 
aspects  of  municipal  development.  Hon.  Alcaeus  Hooper, 
Mr.  Mendes  Cohen,  Mr.  Theodore  Marburg,  Mr.  E.  Glenn 
Ferine  have  read  portions  of  the  monograph  in  manuscript 
or  in  proof  and  have  made  helpful  criticisms.  Mr.  N.  Mur- 
ray of  the  Johns  Hopkins  University  has  given  valuable 
suggestions  as  to  form  and  arrangement. 

In  a  detailed  investigation  dealing  with  so  large  a  body 
of  specific  facts,  it  seems  inevitable  that  errors  should  creep 
in.  Yet  earnest  effort  has  been  made  to  secure  accuracy, 
and  it  is  hoped  that  few  essential  misstatements  have  been 
made.  Critical  comment  and  constructive  suggestion  have 
been  freely  introduced,  but  always  in  the  objective  spirit  of 
the  student  and  the  investigator. 

The  monograph  appears  at  a  critical  time  in  the  munici- 
pal history  of  Baltimore.  The  early  years  of  a  second  cen- 
tury of  corporate  existence  are  to  be  signalized  by  the  prac- 
tical operation  of  a  reform  city  charter^  In  addition  to 
whatever  interest  this  study  may  possess  for  general  stu- 
dents of  finance,  it  is  sent  forth  in  the  hope  that  it  may 
contribute  to  the  development  of  the  new  municipal  spirit, 
strikingly  manifest  in  Baltimore  and  evident  in  some  degree 
throughout  the  United  States. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

Part  I. 

THE  FINANCES  OF  BALTIMORE  TOWN,  1729-1796. 

PAGE 

Preliminary  Statement, 1 

Chapter  I.     The  Beginnings  of  the  Town,  1729-1744, 5 

II.     Expansion  and  Growth,  1745-1780, 9 

III.     The  Genesis  of  Self-Government,  1781-1796,  ...  17 

The  Board  of  Special  Commissioners, 18 

Functions, 19 

Revenues, 21 

Fines  and  forfeitures, 33 

Lotteries, 33 

Special  assessments, 33 

General  property  tax, 25 

Auction  receipts  tax, 87 

Specific  taxes, 38 

Collection  and  recovery, 39 

Gross  receipts,      39 

Indebtedness, 30 

Audit, 31 

The  Board  of  Port  Wardens, 31 

Functions 31 

Revenues, 33 

,                          Fines  and  penalties, 83 

Lotteries, 33 

Tonnage  duty, 33 

Auction  receipts  tax, 34 

Gross  receipts, 35 

The  Board  of  Town  Commissioners,  .......  36 

Street  Reconstruction, 37 

Special  assessment, 37 

Watching  and  Lighting, 40 

Fines  and  penalties, 40 

License  tax, 40 

General  property  tax, 41 

House  tax, 41 

Transfer  of  Functions, 43 

Revenues  and  Expenditures, 44 

Resum6, 45 

(XI) 


XII  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS 

Part  II. 

THE  FINANCES  OF  BALTIMORE  CITY  FROM  1797  TO  1816. 

PAGE 

Introduction, 49 

Chapter  I.     Municipal  Administration, 51 

Corporate  Powers, 51 

Administrative  Organization, 52 

Financial  Machinery, 53 

The  Budget, 53 

II.     Municipal  Expenditure, 55 

Streets  and  Roadways, 55 

Street  paving  and  repair, 55 

Sewers, 57 

Bridges,      58 

Street  Reconstruction, 59 

Street  Cleaning, 60 

Watching  and  Lighting, 61 

Fire  Protection, 62 

Water  Supply, 63 

Health, 66 

Markets, 67 

Wharves  and  Harbor, 68 

Poor  Relief, 69 

Municipal  Buildings, 70 

Administrative  Expenses, 71 

Interest  on  Debt, 72 

III.  Municipal  Revenue, 73 

Taxation, 73 

General  property  tax, 73 

Specific  taxes, 76 

Auction  receipts  tax, 77 

Lottery  tax, 78 

License  taxes, .  78 

Special  Assessments, 80 

Street  paving, 80 

Street  reconstruction, 81 

Wells  and  pumps, 82 

Fees, 83 

Fines  and  Forfeitures, 84 

Quasi-private  Receipts, 85 

Wharves, 85 

I                Markets, 86 

Lotteries, 87 

Gifts, 87 

IV.  Municipal  Indebtedness, 89 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS  XIII 

Part  III. 

THE  FINANCES  OF  BALTIMORE  CITY  FROM  1817  TO  1856. 

PAGB 

Introduction, 93 

Chapter  I.     Municipal  Administration, 95 

Corporate  Powers, • 95 

Administrative  Organization, 95 

Financial  Macliinery, 97 

The  Budget, 98 

II.     Municipal  Expenditure, 100 

Streets  and  Roadways, 100 

Street  paving  and  repair, 101 

Sewers, 105 

Bridges, 106 

Street  Reconstmction, 107 

Street  Cleaning, 110 

Watching  and  Lighting, 112 

Fire  Protection, 116 

Water  Supply, 118 

Health, 130 

Markets, 123 

Wharves  and  Harbor, 123 

Courts, 125 

Schools,       127 

Charities  and  Corrections,      .    , 130 

Parks  and  Squares, 133 

Municipal  Buildings, 135 

Administrative  Expenses, 136 

Interest  on  Debt, 137 

III.     Municipal  Revenue, • 139 

Taxation, 139 

General  Property  Tax, 139 

Assessment, 139 

Exemption, 145 

Rate, 146 

Statutory  limitation, 150 

Collection, 151 

Specific  Taxes, 155 

Auction  Receipts  Tax, 156 

License  Taxes, 158 

Special  Assessments, .  161 

Street  Paving, 161 

Street  Reconstruction, 162 

Wells  and  Pumps, 165 

Miscellaneous  Purposes, 166 


XIV  TABLE    OF   CONTENTS 

Chap.  III.     Municipal  Revenue. — Continiced.  paqb 

Fees, 167 

Fines, 169 

Quasi-private  Receipts, 169 

Wiiarves, 169 

Markets,      171 

Municipal  property, 171 

Lotteries, 172 

"Water  Supply, 173 

Gifts  and  Subsidies, 173 

IV.     Municipal  Indebtedness, 175 

Growth  of  Indebtedness, 175 

Origin  of  Funded  Debt, 175 

Era  of  Internal  Improvements, 178 

Baltimore  and  Ohio  Railroad, 178 

Baltimore  and  Susquehanna  Railroad,    ....  184 

Susquehanna  Canal, 186 

Minor  issues, 188 

Guaranteed  Debt, 189 

Purchase  of  Water  Plant, 193 

Administration  and  Limitation,    , 194 

Sinking  Funds, 196 

Municipal  Credit, 199 


Part  IV. 

THE  FINANCES  OF  BALTIMORE  CITY  FROM  1857  TO  1897. 

PAGE 

Introduction, 201 

Chapter  I.     Municipal  Administration, 203 

Corporate  Powers, 203 

Administrative  Organization, 203 

Financial  Machinery, 204 

The  Budget, 205 

II.     Municipal  Expenditure, 208 

Streets  and  Roadways, 209 

Street  paving  and  repair, 210 

Sewers, 218 

Bridges, 217 

Street  Reconstruction, 218 

Street  Cleaning, 220 

Police 223 

Lighting 225 

Fire  Protection, 229 

Water  Supply, 231 


TABLE   OF   CONTENTS  XV 

Chap.  II.     Municipal  Expenditube. — Continued.  page 

Health, 233 

Markets,      233 

Wharves  and  Harbor,      234 

Courts, 237 

Schools, 239 

Charities  and  Corrections, 241 

Parks  and  Squares, 245 

Municipal  Buildings, 249 

Administrative  Expenses, 251 

Interest  on  Debt, 253 

III.  Municipal  Revenue, 253 

Taxation, 253 

General  Property  Tax, 253 

Assessment, 254 

Exemption, 264 

Limitation  and  rate, 266 

Collection,      269 

License  Taxes,  .....' 272 

Franchise  Taxes, 275 

Street  railways, 276 

Wire  conduits, 283 

.  Special  Assessments, 285 

Street  paving, 286 

Street  reconstruction, 287 

Sewers, 288 

Fees, 289 

Fines,      290 

Quasi-private  Receipts, 290 

Water  supply, 290 

Wharves, 295 

Markets, 296 

Wire  conduits, 297 

Municipal  property, 298 

Gifts  and  Subsidies, 302 

IV.  Municipal  Indebtedness, 304 

Funded  Debt, ^ 304 

1857-1867,      305 

1868-1888,      311 

1889-1898,      319 

Guaranteed  Debt, 381 

Floating  Debt,      326 

Sinking  Funds,      333 

Administration  and  Limitation, 345 

Municipal  Credit, 347 


XVI  TABLE    OF   CONTENTS 

Part  V. 

THE  PRESENT  FINANCIAL  CONDITION  OF  BALTIMORE. 

PAQB 

Chaptek  I.     Municipal  Finances  in  1897, 351 

II.     The  New  Charter,     356 

III.     The  Financial  Outlook,      366 

Bibliographical  Note, 374 

Appendices  : 

A.  Balance  Sheets  of  Special  Commissioners,  1783-1796,     .    .  376 

B.  "             "           Port  Wardens,  1783-1795, 377 

C.  '<             «'            County  Court,  1790-1795, 377 

D.  Annual  Expenditures  and  Receipts,  1797-1897, 378 

E.  Annual  Tax  Levies,  1797-1897, 382 

F.  General  Property  Tax,  1831-1897, 384 

G.  Growth  of  Funded  Debt,  1857-1897, 385 

H.     Growth  of  Sinking  Funds,  1856-1898, 387 

Index,     391 


The  Financial  History 
OF  Baltimore 


PRELIMINARY  STATEMENT. 

The  financial  history  of  Baltimore  reflects  with  exactness 
the  course  of  its  material  growth  and  of  its  administrative 
development.  At  no  time  has  there  been  any  important 
change  in  the  organization  of  the  city  government  or  in  the 
essential  features  of  its  economic  life,  without  corresponding 
effect  upon  municipal  finances.  Similarly,  each  succeeding 
phase  in  fiscal  life  has  left  an  enduring  impress  upon  local 
administration,  and  to  a  less  marked  degree  upon  material 
development. 

The  first  period  in  the  fiscal  history  of  Baltimore  is  the 
pre-corporate  era  from  1729,  when  Baltimore  Town  was 
created  by  legislative  fiat  as  a  market  place  and  port  of 
entry  near  the  head  of  Chesapeake  Bay,  to  1796,  when  the 
original  administrative  shell,  long  since  outgrown,  was  cast 
ofif  and  Baltimore  was  incorporated  as  a  city. 

Financial  development  within  this  period  of  fifty-seven 
years  may  be  conveniently  divided  into  three  stages.  The 
first,  extending  from  the  erection  of  the  Town  in  1729  to 
consolidation  with  Jones'  Town  in  1745,  was  characterized 
by  slight  independent  financial  activity;  in  financial  as  in 
administrative  matters  Baltimore  Town  was  an  integral 
part  of  Baltimore  County.  The  second  stage,  from  1745  to 
the  genesis  of  local  self-government  in  1781,  was  marked  by 
the  slow  emergence  of  local  life  in  financial  matters,  inci- 
dent to  territorial  expansion  and  material   growth.     The 

B  (I) 


2  THE   FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

third  stage,  from  1781  to  the  incorporation  of  Baltimore  in 
1796,  was  a  continuous  struggle  to  adapt  the  resources  of  a 
straggling  village  to  the  needs  of  an  expanding  city. 

For  one  hundred  years,  the  original  charter  remained  the 
basis  of  the  city  government  of  Baltimore,  But  although 
not  displaced  until  1898  by  a  second  fundamental  instru- 
ment, its  practical  significance  had  long  before  been  reduced 
to  a  minimum  by  the  mass  of  amendatory  legislation  en- 
acted by  successive  General  Assemblies.  From  the  stand- 
point of  financial  as  of  economic  and  administrative  devel- 
opment, the  first  century  of  Baltimore's  corporate  existence 
falls  naturally  into  three  periods:  the  first  extending  from 
1797  to  1816;  the  second  from  181 7  to  1856;  the  third  from 
1857  to  1897. 

From  1797  to  1816  administrative  and  fiscal  organization, 
the  details  of  which  had  in  the  main  been  left  to  local  choice 
by  the  act  of  incorporation,  underwent  repeated  and  illogical 
change.  Rapid  municipal  growth  made  necessary  the  ex- 
tension and  reorganization  of  local  functions  and  this  was 
undertaken  tentatively  and  conservatively.  Normal  in- 
crease in  expenditure  was  early  checked  by  the  marked  in- 
elasticity of  the  sources  of  municipal  revenue,  and  the  ex- 
igencies of  the  War  of  1812  resulted  in  the  accumulation  of 
unpaid  claims  against  the  city — the  nucleus  of  the  funded 
municipal  debt  of  the  succeeding  period. 

The  essential  features  of  the  present  financial  system  of 
Baltimore  were  established  in  the  period  from  181 7  to  1856. 
The  introduction  of  new  industrial  methods  succeeded  the 
reactionary  depression  following  the  War  of  181 2.  Begin- 
ning with  the  projection  of  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  Rail- 
road as  a  necessary  measure  for  preventing  the  diversion  of 
western  trade,  the  municipality  plunged  recklessly  into  the 
policy  of  aiding  works  of  internal  improvement,  from  the 
construction  of  which  an  immediate  local  advantage  was 
supposed  to  accrue.  By  direct  municipal  loans  and  the 
lavish  extension  of  municipal  credit,  a  relatively  large 
funded  and  guaranteed  debt  was  amassed,  necessitating  in- 


PRELIMINARY   STATEMENT  3 

creasing  resort  to  the  corporate  power  of  taxation,  and 
limitation  in  municipal  function  and  expenditure. 

The  forty  years  from  1857  to  1897  may  be  said  to  con- 
stitute the  modern  period  of  the  corporate  history  of  Balti- 
more. Economic  interests  suffered  keenly  from  the  events 
of  the  Civil  War,  but  with  the  revival  of  the  prostrate  in- 
dustrial life  of  the  South,  the  city  emerged  into  new  eco- 
nomic importance  and  subsequent  growth  was  substantial 
and  continuous.  The  administrative  organization  of  the 
city  underwent  spasmodic  and  unimportant  change.  The 
local  supremacy  of  the  Know-Nothing  party  was  succeeded 
by  the  administrative  laxity  and  waste  of  the  War  and  Re- 
construction periods,  and  these  in  turn  by  a  long  era  of 
political  stability.  The  financial  characteristics  of  the 
period  were  rapid  growth  in  municipal  expenditure  and  in 
funded  indebtedness,  increasing  inelasticity  in  the  taxable 
basis  and  in  sources  of  municipal  revenue  other  than  direct 
taxation,  and  a  consequent  uninterrupted  rise  in  the  tax 
rate. 

In  the  following  pages  the  financial  history  of  Baltimore 
through  these  successive  periods  is  traced  in  detail.  The 
narrative  proper  is  supplemented  by  a  consideration  of  the 
present  financial  status  of  the  city,  including  a  cross-sec- 
tional view  of  municipal  finances  in  a  single  typical  year 
(1897),  a  description  of  the  fiscal  provisions  of  the  new 
charter  with  which  Baltimore  is  about  to  begin  a  second 
century  of  corporate  existence,  and  a  chapter  of  critical 
comments  and  constructive  suggestions. 


PART  I 

THE  FINANCES  OF  BALTIMORE  TOWN 
1 729- 1 796 

CHAPTER  I 

THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  TOWN,   1729-1744. 

The  proprietary  government  of  Maryland  emerged  from 
an  era  of  troublous  times  upon  a  period  of  active  growth 
and  development  towards  the  close  of  the  first  quarter  of 
the  eighteenth  century.  Commerce  expanded,  population 
increased  and  settlements  to  the  northward  thickened.  It 
was  not  long  before  the  need  of  additional  ports  of  entry 
near  the  head  of  Chesapeake  Bay  began  to  be  felt.  On  July 
14,  1729,  a  petition,  signed  by  leading  planters  of  Balti- 
more County,  was  presented  to  the  General  Assembly  pray- 
ing for  the  erection  of  a  town  on  the  north  side  of  Patapsco 
River,  upon  a  tract  of  land  situated  some  fourteen  miles 
from  the  waters  of  the  Bay.  Three  weeks  later  a  bill  to 
this  effect  was  passed,  appointing  seven  well  known  resi- 
dents of  the  County  as  "  Commissioners,"  to  purchase  by 
agreement  or  by  condemnation  the  site  indicated  in  the 
petition,  and  "  to  lay  out  the  same  in  the  most  convenient 
manner  into  sixty  equal  lots  to  be  erected  into  a  Town," 
with  adequate  provision  for  streets,  lanes  and  public  pur- 
poses. These  lots  were  open  for  settlement,  preferably  to 
residents  of  Baltimore  County,  but  after  six  months  to  any 
other  person  paying  to  the  owner  of  the  land  a  due  pro- 

(5) 


6  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

portion  of  its  total  valuation  and  agreeing  to  erect  there- 
upon, within  a  period  of  eighteen  months,  a  house  covering 
at  least  four  hundred  square  feet/ 

Like  the  hundred  or  more  earlier  fiat  towns  of  provincial 
Maryland,  Baltimore  Town  was  designed  essentially  as  a 
market  place  and  entrepot,  where  local  traffic  could  be  car- 
ried on,  imports  be  entered,  exports  be  cleared  and  public 
dues  and  taxes  be  paid.  It  was  endowed  with  no  excep- 
tional political  or  civil  privileges,  and  had  virtually  no  or- 
ganic life  of  its  own.  The  government  of  the  Town,  vested 
in  the  original  Commissioners  who  held  office  for  life  and 
filled  vacancies  arising  in  their  own  number,  consisted  of 
little  more  than  the  disposition  of  vacant  sites,  and  the 
adjustment  of  disputes  between  lot  holders.  The  settle- 
ment itself  was  in  the  main  a  typical  Maryland  town  of  pro- 
vincial times,  "  a  collection  of  stores,  warehouses,  quays  and 
government  buildings  "  which  tended  to  grow  "  not  around 
the  chapel  or  school,  but  around  the  custom  house  or  court 
house." ' 

A  local  body  thus  constituted  had  manifestly  little  occa- 
sion and  less  opportunity  for  independent  financial  activity. 
In  fiscal  as  in  other  matters,  early  Baltimore  Town  was 
simply  a  geographical  unit  within  Baltimore  County.  Resi- 
dents of  the  Town  were  assessed  in  ordinary  manner  by 
the  county  court,  and  paid  the  customary  charges  of  the 
parish.  Services  were  rendered,  authorized  levies  were 
made  and  expended  by  county  justices  or  parish  vestry 
within  the  Town,  precisely  as  in  the  county  or  parish  proper. 

A  suggestion  of  local  life  in  financial  matters  appears  in- 
cidentally in  the  act  erecting  the  Town.  Many  persons 
who  originally  took  up  lots  in  the  statutory  towns  of  Mary- 
land, failed  to  fulfill  the  conditions  of  settlement  and  so  for- 
feited title.  For  the  purpose  of  preventing  the  continuance 
or  growth  of  vacant  tracts,  the  General  Assembly  early 

^  Bacon,  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1729,  ch.  12. 

'  Wilhelm,  "Maryland  Local  Institutions,"  pp.  IDS,  ill,  in  Johns 
Hopkins  University  Studies  in  Historical  and  Political  Science,  Third 
Series  (1885),  Nos.  V-VI-VIL 


THE   FINANCES   OF   BALTIMORE  TOWN,    I729-I796  7 

provided  for  the  re-entry  of  forfeited  lots.  The  usual  clause 
was  inserted  in  the  act  erecting  Baltimore  to  the  effect  that 
any  person  might  take  up  a  forfeited  lot  and  acquire  a  valid 
title  thereto  by  "  paying  the  Commissioners  or  person  by 
them  thereunto  appointed,  the  sum  first  set  and  assessed 
upon  such  lot,  for  the  public  use  and  benefit  of  the  town."  ^ 

The  water  front  of  the  new  settlement  was  quickly  taken 
up;  but  landwards  Baltimore  grew  slowly,  and  forfeitures 
and  re-entries  of  building  sites  were  frequent.  Yet  the 
revenue  trickling  from  this  source  was  thin  and  uncertain. 
Persons  taking  up  forfeited  lots  formally  acknowledged 
themselves  as  "  debtor  to  the  said  Town  as  ordered  by  Act 
of  Assembly."  *  But  immediate  payment  of  the  purchase 
money  seems  rarely  to  have  been  made,  A  title  to  the  lot 
was  recorded,  ordinarily  with  the  simple  proviso  that  the 
taker  up  "  promises  and  obliges  himself  and  his  heirs  to 
satisfy  the  Commissioners  of  the  said  Town  for  the  said 
lot."*  For  many  years  the  familiar  fate  of  the  statutory 
Maryland  town  threatened  Baltimore,  and  the  Town  Com- 
missioners directed  their  efforts  to  an  increase  of  population 
and  the  erection  of  buildings  and  took  no  steps  to  enforce 
early  payment  of  the  purchase  money  of  lots.  Not  until 
the  Town  had  struck  healthy  root,  did  the  disposition  of 
forfeited  sites  become  an  appreciable  source  of  revenue. 

Few  occasions,  however,  arose  in  the  early  life  of  the 
Town  for  any  expenditures  of  a  distinctly  local  character. 
In  1752,  twenty-three  years  after  its  erection,  Baltimore  was 
still  a  straggling  settlement  of  some  twenty-five  houses  and 
two  hundred  inhabitants.*  Necessary  offices  of  a  general 
character  were  exercised  by  county  and  parish  authorities. 
The  Commissioners  selected  one  of  their  own  number  as 
clerk,  to  keep  a  record  of  proceedings  and  to  maintain  a 
plat  of  the  town,  as  provided  by  the  act  creating  Baltimore; 


'  Bacon,  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1729,  ch.  12. 

'  "  Records  of  the  Commissioners  of  Baltimore  Town  "  (MS),  p.  3. 
'  Ihid.,  p.  7. 

*  Griffiths,  "Annals  of  Baltimore,"  p.  2^;  Scharf,  "Chronicles  of 
Baltimore,"  p.  48. 


8  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

but  his  services  were  probably  remunerated  by  fees  for  mak- 
ing entries  and  recording  titles/ 

The  revenues  accruing  from  the  sale  of  forfeited  lots, 
while  small,  were  probably  adequate  for  slight  expenditures 
for  local  repair  and  construction.  Now  and  then  some 
larger  local  improvement  became  necessary  and  its  cost  was 
defrayed  by  voluntary  subscriptions  of  residents  of  the 
Town.  The  authority  of  the  Commissioners,  absolute  with- 
in narrow  limits,  did  not  of  course  involve  raising  money 
by  local  levy,  or  the  exaction  of  local  fees  or  dues.  In 
default  of  specific  legislation  by  the  General  Assembly,  or 
extraordinary  appropriation  by  county  or  parish  authori- 
ties, additional  local  expenditure  could  only  be  defrayed  in 
the  voluntary  manner  indicated.  Thus  record  is  found  of 
a  bridge  built  across  Jones'  Falls  in  1732  to  facilitate  com- 
munication with  the  adjacent  newly  erected  Jonas  or  Jones' 
Town,  the  cost  of  which  was  met  by  "  the  inhabitants  of 
the  town." '  Such  expenditures  were  possibly  assessed  by 
the  Commissioners  upon  residents  of  Baltimore.  But  re- 
turns could  not  be  enforced  by  process  of  law,  and  it  is 
more  likely  that  the  amount  required  was  secured  then,  as 
somewhat  later,  by  purely  voluntary  subscription.*  The 
slow  growth  of  local  revenues  in  early  Baltimore  is  sug- 
gested by  the  apparent  inability  of  the  Town  even  to  main- 
tain in  repair  the  bridge  thus  constructed  and  the  conse- 
quent provision  in  an  act  of  the  Assembly  of  1745,  that  it 
"  shall  for  the  future  be  deemed  a  Public  Bridge  and  re- 
paired and  kept  at  the  charge  of  Baltimore  County."  * 

^ "  Records   of  the   Commissioners  of  Baltimore  Town  "   (MS), 
pp.  I,  5,  et  passim. 
^  Bacon,  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1745,  ch.  9,  sect.  4. 

*  There  is  nothing  in  the  financial  history  of  Baltimore  Town 
corresponding  to  the  action  of  the  inhabitants  of  Charlestown,  who, 
in  1744,  "  voluntarily  advanced  and  paid  into  the  hands  of  the 
Commissioners  appointed  for  laying  out  the  said  Town,  the  sum  of 
Twenty  shillings  upon  every  and  respective  lot  by  them  taken  up, 
over  and  above  the  price  and  purchase  thereof," — the  aggregate 
sum  of  i200  thus  realized  "  to  be  applied  towards  building  a 
Public  Wharf  and  Store-House  in  the  said  Town  for  the  advance- 
ment of  trade  thereof."     Bacon,  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1744,  ch.  22. 

*  Bacon,  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1745,  ch.  9. 


CHAPTER  II 

EXPANSION  AND  GROWTH,    1745-1780. 

The  consolidation  with  Baltimore  Town  of  an  adjacent 
settlement,  Jones'  Town,  authorized  by  the  Assembly  in 
1745,^  marks  the  beginning  of  a  period  of  territorial  expan- 
sion and  material  growth.  Two  years  later,  in  1747,  a  strip 
of  land  lying  between  the  earlier  settlements  was  absorbed. 
Successive  acts  of  the  Assembly  in  1750  and  in  1753  added 
territory  almost  as  large  as  the  tract  out  of  which  the  origi- 
nal town  was  erected.  Further  additions  were  made  in 
1765,  in  1773,  and  in  1781.  The  life  of  the  settlement  grad- 
ually developed  from  a  mere  struggle  for  existence  to  a 
race  for  supremacy  in  trade  with  older  towns  of  the  prov- 
ince. Baltimore  with  its  fine  harbor,  numerous  mill  streams 
and  rich  iron  deposits  slowly  forged  ahead.  The  issue  of 
the  contest,  not  realized  until  after  the  close  of  the  Revolu- 
tionary War,  was  anticipated  in  1768,  when  the  privileges 
and  dignities  of  county  town — a  court  house  and  a  prison — 
were  transferred  from  Joppa  to  Baltimore.  The  outbreak 
of  the  Revolutionary  War  cut  off  foreign  supplies  and 
stimulated  local  manufactures  and  shipping,  making  pos- 
sible a  period  of  remarkable  commercial  activity  following 
the  final  suspension  of  hostilities. 

The  institutional  development  of  Baltimore  during  this 
period  was  less  marked  than  its  material  growth.  The 
"  consolidation  act "  of  1745  vested  the  administration  of 
the  larger  Baltimore  Town  in  a  new  board  of  seven  Town 
Commissioners  holding  permanent  tenure  and  filling  their 
own  vacancies,  but  in  all  other  matters,  like  their  predeces- 
sors, a  mere  standing  committee  of  the  General  Assembly. 

^  Bacon,  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1745,  ch.  9. 
(9) 


10  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF    BALTIMORE 

Some  recognition  of  local  life  in  financial  matters  was, 
however,  inseparably  connected  with  territorial  growth. 
The  clerical  duties  of  the  Commissioners  became  more 
onerous  and  they  were  empowered  by  the  act  of  1745  "  to 
levy,  assess  and  take  by  way  of  distress  if  needful,  from  the 
inhabitants  of  the  Town  by  even  and  equal  proportion  the 
sum  of  three  pounds  to  be  paid  to  their  clerk." 

Assessment  by  poll  was  virtually  the  only  form  of  direct 
taxation  known  in  Maryland  prior  to  the  Revolutionary 
War,  and  the  phrase  "  by  even  and  equal  proportion  "  has 
been  taken  accordingly  to  mean  that  the  Commissioners  an- 
nually levied  upon  each  actual  resident  of  the  Town  his  per 
capita  share  of  the  three  pounds  required.^  In  actual  fact, 
although  the  selection  of  a  clerk  followed  immediately  upon 
the  organization  of  the  new  board  of  Town  Commissioners, 
no  provision  appears  to  have  been  made  for  his  specific  re- 
muneration until  1750,  when  the  Commissioners  resolved 
"  to  levy  a  Tax  of  one  Shilling  Currency  per  Annum  on 
Each  Lott  in  the  Town  toward  defraying  the  wages  of  the 
clerk  and  that  the  same  be  levied  for  the  year  past  ending 
March  27,  1749." "  A  special  tax  on  land — the  germ  of  a 
general  property  tax — and  not  a  poll  tax  is  thus  the  first 
direct  tax  levied  in  Baltimore  and  probably  one  of  the  ear- 
liest forms  of  a  property  tax  in  Maryland."  Record  is 
found  of  an  apparently  similar  levy  in  1752;*  but  thereafter 
the  ordinary  revenues  of  the  Commissioners  appear  to  have 
been  adequate  for  the  purpose,  without  necessary  recourse 
to  direct  taxation. 

The  act  of  1745  authorized  a  re-survey  of  the  Town,  and 
a  clearer  marking  of  the  bounds  of  lots.  The  latter  work 
extended  over  some  years  and  involved  a  considerable  cost 
— defrayed  in  part  by  the  services  of  persons  in  debt  for  the 

* "  Report  of  Baltimore  Tax  Commission  "  (1885),  P-  7- 

* "  Records  of  the  Commissioners  of  Baltimore  Town "  (MS), 
P-  23. 

"  "  Report  of  the  Maryland  Tax  Commission  "  (1888),  p.  cxxiv. 

* "  Records  of  the  Commissioners  of  Baltimore  Town "  (MS), 
p.  30. 


THE    FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE   TOWN,    I729-I796        II 

purchase  of  forfeited  lots,  to  whom  a  corresponding  credit 
was  allowed  by  the  Commissioners/  An  appreciable  ex- 
penditure was  however  necessary,  and  when  in  1750  the 
one  shilling  tax  for  clerical  services  was  levied,  the  Com- 
missioners, apparently  by  mere  form  of  analogy,  resolved 
to  levy  "  also  One  Shilling  currency  per  Annum  on  Each 
Lott  for  a  Locust  Post  which  is  set  up  at  the  end  of  Each 
Lott."  * 

As  an  exercise  of  local  power,  this  charge  is  anomalous. 
It  was  entirely  without  specific  authority  and  ordinary  pro- 
cesses of  law  could  certainly  not  have  been  employed  to  en- 
force payment  from  delinquent  lot  owners.  Both  in  regard 
to  this  and  the  preceding  levy  the  Clerk  was  directed  "  to 
return  a  list  of  what  he  receives  to  the  Commissioners  at 
their  next  meeting."  But  such  a  report  if  made  has  not 
been  preserved  and  we  are  left  in  doubt  as  to  the  results 
attending  either  levy.  No  other  direct  tax  of  any  kind 
appears  to  have  been  levied  in  Baltimore  until  1783. 

As  Baltimore  Town  developed,  the  administrative  over- 
sight exercised  in  theory  by  the  county  court  inevitably 
involved  the  neglect  of  local  needs.  Thus  the  repair  of  the 
bridge  made  a  county  charge  by  specific  enactment  in  1745 
became  again  in  1747  an  object  of  local  concern.  The 
growth  of  local  trade  and  commerce  hastened  the  emer- 
gence of  distinctly  local  demands  clearly  beyond  the  prov- 
ince of  the  county  administration.  A  fence  was  erected 
about  the  town  in  1746,  either  as  tradition  relates  to  serve 
as  a  wall  of  defense  from  a  rumored  Indian  incursion,  or 
more  likely  to  keep  stray  swine  and  geese  from  trespassing. 
The  earliest  local  functionary  for  other  than  clerical  pur- 
poses,* was  a  person  appointed  in  1750  at  "  40  shillings  per 
annum "  to  restrain  residents  from  appropriating  fence 
pickets  for  kindling  wood.  Need  was  early  felt  for  public 
wharves,  and  the  first  of  these  was  actually  commenced  in 

^ "  Records  of  the  Commissioners  of  Baltimore  Town "  (MS), 
pp.  22-23. 

'  Ibid.,  p.  33.  •  Ibid.,  p.  23. 


12  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF    BALTIMORE 

1750/  The  erection  of  a  market  house,  agitated  as  early 
as  1 75 1,  was  finally  consummated  ten  years  later,  and  the 
appointment  of  a  clerk  of  the  market,  by  the  Justices  of 
Baltimore  County  Court,  to  receive  "  not  more  than  30 
pounds  per  annum  "  from  out  the  Town  treasury,  was  au- 
thorized by  the  Assembly  in  1765/ 

The  inception  of  improvements  of  this  character  pro- 
ceeded ordinarily,  as  in  the  earliest  days  of  the  Town,  from 
voluntary  agencies.  Thus  in  1748  twenty-six  residents  of 
the  Town  subscribed  "  towards  keeping,  repairing,  and  mak- 
ing good  the  fence  of  the  said  town  and  supporting  a  per- 
son to  keep  it  in  order."*  In  175 1  an  unsuccessful  sub- 
scription was  opened  to  erect  a  public  market  since  "  no 
provision  hath  yet  been  made  by  law  or  otherwise."  * 
Three  years  later  $450.00  were  raised  by  a  benefit  lottery 
conducted  by  residents  of  the  Town  for  building  the  public 
wharf,"  and  in  1764  a  more  liberal  subscription,  aided  by  a 
second  lottery,  secured  enough  to  make  possible  the  erec- 
tion of  the  market  house  upon  a  site  leased  by  the  Town 
Commissioners.  The  maintenance  and  extension  of  local 
institutions,  once  provided,  speedily  devolved  upon  the 
Town  and  entailed  a  steadily  increasing  local  expenditure. 

The  growing  need  of  income  was  met,  in  part,  by  the 
larger  revenue  derived  from  the  re-entry  and  sale  of  for- 
feited lots.  The  Act  of  1745  transferring  the  administration 
of  the  Town  to  a  new  board  of  Town  Commissioners,  au- 
thorized them  to  recover  "  any  money  which  shall  be  found 
due  to  the  first  commissioners  from  any  takers-up  of  the 
lots  by  virtue  of  the  original  laws  for  laying  out  the  same; 
which  money  they  shall  apply  to  the  uses  intended  by  the 
said    original    Act."'      Having    ascertained    in    1747   that 

*  Griffiths,  "  Annals  of  Baltimore,"  p.  29. 

'Ibid.,  pp.  31-32;  Scharf,  "Chronicles  of  Baltimore,"  pp.  46-47; 
Bacon,  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1765,  ch.  35. 

°  Griffiths,  "  Annals  of  Baltimore,"  p.  30;  Scharf,  "  Chronicles  of 
Baltimore,"  p.  39. 

*  Griffiths,  "Annals,"  pp.  31-32;  Scharf,  "Chronicles,"  pp.  46-47. 
'  Griffiths.  "  Annals,"  p.  34;  Scharf,  "  Chronicles,"  p.  49. 

*  Bacon,  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1745,  ch.  9. 


THE    FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE   TOWN,    I729-I796        I3 

"  there  is  25  lotts  which  the  proprietors  have  not  paid  for  " 
in  Baltimore  Town,  and  twenty-four  lots,  in  Jones'  Town, 
the  Commissioners  promptly  proceeded  to  enforce  settle- 
ment/ In  February  1748,  it  was  further  resolved  that 
"  when  any  person  applies  to  the  Clerk  to  take  up  any  Lott 
either  in  Baltimore  or  in  Jones's  Town  that  they  pay  down 
the  money  to  the  Clerk,  or  the  Clerk  is  not  to  enter  it." ' 
Payment  of  arrearages  was  gradually  made  and  vacant  sites 
remaining  were  taken  up,  sometimes  at  a  considerable  pre- 
mium.' 

The  aggregate  revenue  derived  from  the  sale  of  forfeited 
sites,  even  when  supplemented  by  such  occasional  wind- 
falls as  the  disposition  of  the  town-fence  remnants  or  the 
sale  of  deserted  houses,^  tended  from  its  very  nature  to  di- 
minish as  the  Town  became  more  thickly  settled  and  the 
need  for  local  revenues  became  more  urgent.  More  pro- 
ductive sources  of  local  revenues  were  (i)  Fines  and  For- 
feitures, and  (2)  Market  Licenses  and  Rentals: 

(Fines  and  Forfeitures.)  No  original  power  resided  in 
the  Town  Commissioners  to  impose  local  fines,  even  in  the 
exercise  of  specifically  conferred  authority.  The  town- 
fence  was  abstracted  piece-meal,  almost  under  the  admin- 
istrative nose  of  the  Town,  with  confessedly  no  means  of 
redress  on  the  part  of  the  Commissioners.'  A  general 
power  conferred  by  the  Assembly  in  1747'  to  cause  all  nuis- 
ances to  be  abated  was  inadequate  to  effect  the  removal  of 
any  large  inconvenience,  and  specific  authority,  enforcable 
by  penalties,  had  to  be  sought  from  the  Assembly  when 
such  an  occasion  arose.^ 

^ "  Records  of  the  Commissioners  of  Baltimore  Town  "  (MS), 
pp.  17-18. 

'Ibid.,  p.  21.  'Ibid.,  p.  25. 

*  Ibid.,  pp.  23,  30.  "  Ibid.,  p.  30. 

'  Bacon.  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1747,  ch.  21. 

^  Ibid.,  1766,  ch.  22.  As  late  as  1791,  the  Town  Commissioner? 
petitioned  the  legislature  to  impose  penalties  for  enforcing  authority 
vested  in  them  several  years  earlier. 


14  THE   FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

The  earliest  specific  grant  of  authority  for  the  imposition 
of  local  fines,  is  contained  in  an  act  of  the  Assembly  of  1747, 
wherein  the  Town  Commissioners  were  empowered  broadly 
to  make  such  rules  and  orders  "  as  may  tend  to  the  Im- 
provement and  Regulation  of  said  Town  in  general,"  and 
specifically  to  impose  a  fine  of  ten  shillings  upon  every  resi- 
dent allowing  his  chimney  to  catch  fire  or  failing  to  keep 
"  a  ladder  high  enough  to  extend  to  the  Top  of  the  Roof  of 
such  House."  ^  Of  more  importance,  financially  consid- 
ered, was  the  provision  in  the  act  of  1765,  appropriating  to 
the  Town  Commissioners  "  for  the  Use  and  Benefit  of  the 
Town,"  all  fines  and  forfeitures  accruing  from  neglect  of 
the  regulations  prescribed  for  market  sales/ 

The  development  of  local  trade  was  followed  by  the  in- 
stitution of  a  system  of  local  inspection  of  staple  merchan- 
dise. In  1768  the  General  Assembly  authorized  the  annual 
appointment  by  the  Town  Commissioners  of  an  inspector 
of  flour,  three  cullers  or  garblers  of  staves  and  shingles, 
three  measurers  of  grain,  and  five  weighers  of  hay  and 
corders  of  wood;  these  officials  were  authorized  to  receive 
specified  fees,  but  were  required  to  transfer  all  fines  and 
forfeitures  accruing  under  the  act  to  the  Town  Commis- 
sioners, "  to  be  by  them  laid  out  and  expended  in  mending 
the  Public  Wharfs  and  Streets  in  the  said  Town." " 

Some  few  fines  although  locally  imposed  were  not  re- 
mitted to  local  use.  Provision  was  made  in  1774  for  the 
annual  appointment  by  the  Town  Commissioners  of  a 
ganger  to  measure  liquids  brought  to  Baltimore  for  sale. 
Fines  and  forfeitures  therein  accruing  were  however  appro- 
priated one-half  to  the  informer  and  one-half  toward  de- 
fraying the  county  charge/ 

(Licenses  and  Rentals.)  The  General  Assembly  in  1747 
authorized  the  Town  Commissioners  to  appoint  two  Fairs 
to  be  held  annually  in  Baltimore,  and  to  provide  regulations 

*  Bacon,  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1747,  ch.  21. 

'Ibid.,  1765,  ch.  35.  'Ibid.,  1768,  ch.  15. 

*  Ibid.,  1774,  ch.  23. 


THE    FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE   TOWN,    I729-I796        1 5 

therefor/  Aside  from  the  fines  and  forfeitures  accruing 
from  violation  of  prescribed  regulations,  no  regular  reve- 
nue appears  to  have  been  derived  from  this  source  for  sev- 
eral years.  On  February  6,  1751,  the  Town  Commissioners 
ordered  their  clerk :  "  to  put  up  advertisements,  one  Month 
before  the  Fairs  kept  in  the  Town  to  inform  all  persons  that 
they  are  not  to  erect  any  Booth  or  Sell  any  Liquors  at  the 
said  fairs  before  they  obtain  License  from  the  Clerk  and 
pay  him  for  the  same.  The  Clerk  not  to  receive  a  Sum  ex- 
ceeding fifteen  Shillings  for  any  one  Booth  nor  less  than 
Two  Shillings  and  Six  Pence  to  be  applied  to  the  use  of 
the  Town."  * 

The  collection  of  this  earliest  license  tax  probably  came 
to  an  end  with  the  completion  of  the  Town  market  house. 
In  1765,  the  General  Assembly  authorized  the  Town  Com- 
missioners to  appoint  a  clerk  of  the  market,  to  rent  the 
stalls  and  shambles,  to  designate  two  days  in  the  week  as 
market  days,  and  to  impose  penalties  for  sales  and  purchases 
at  any  other  time  or  place.  Rentals,  fines  and  forfeitures 
accrued  to  the  Town  Commissioners  for  "  the  public  use 
and  benefit  of  the  Town."  * 

The  disbursement  of  local  funds  was  entrusted  largely  to 
the  discretion  of  the  Town  Commissioners.  Specific  funds 
were  sometimes  appropriated  to  specific  purposes,  ordinarily 
to  those  representing  local  needs  at  the  time  most  urgent. 
Thus  fines  imposed  for  chimney  fires  in  1747  were  devoted 
"  to  some  Building  or  Improvement  in  the  said  Town,  such 
as  the  Repair  of  the  Bridge  or  making  and  repairing  a 
public  wharf."  Penalties  and  forfeitures  accruing  under  the 
inspection  act  of  1768  were  expended  in  "  mending  the  pub- 
lic Wharfs  and  Streets."  More  commonly  the  Town  Com- 
missioners were  directed  simply  to  apply  the  sums  accruing 
to  "  the  public  Use  and  Benefit  of  the  Town."     In  any 

*  Bacon,  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1747,  ch.  21. 

* "  Records  of  the  Commissioners  of  Baltimore  Town "  (MS), 
p.  29. 

*  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1765,  ch.  35. 


l6  THE   FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

event  a  clause  designating  specific  objects  of  expenditure 
must  have  had  suggestive  rather  than  mandatory  force,  and 
to  have  been  subject  in  practice  to  the  discretion  of  the 
Town  Commissioners. 

Provision  was  ordinarily  made  in  every  act  appropriating 
funds  for  local  use,  that  precise  account  of  receipts  and 
expenditures  should  be  kept  by  the  clerk  of  the  Town  Com- 
missioners, or  as  he  came  gradually  to  be  called,  the  Town 
Clerk;  but  nothing  like  a  periodic  fiscal  statement  seems  to 
have  been  required  or  rendered  during  this  period,  and  it 
is  impossible  to  reconstruct  any  fiscal  summary  from  the 
scanty  records  of  the  Town  Commissioners. 


CHAPTER  III 

THE  GENESIS  OF  SEIiE-GOVERNMENT,   1781-1796. 

At  the  close  of  the  Revolutionary  War,  Baltimore  Town 
had  clearly  outgrown  its  original  administrative  shell.  A 
form  of  government  devised  for  a  port  of  entry  and  strained 
to  satisfy  the  needs  of  a  straggling  village  was  manifestly 
inadequate  for  a  town  of  some  8000  inhabitants.  This  was 
particularly  evident  in  financial  matters  where  the  limited 
resources  of  a  tentative  commercial  settlement,  with  little 
or  no  organic  life  of  its  own,  were  available  for  the  expand- 
ing wants  of  an  incipient  city.  A  measure  of  local  self-con- 
sciousness developed  with  the  events  of  the  War,  and  in 
1782  the  first  of  repeated  unsuccessful  attempts  was  made 
to  secure  the  incorporation  of  the  Town.  Thereafter  until 
actual  incorporation  in  1797,  the  administrative  development 
of  Baltimore  was  an  unsatisfactory  attempt  to  satisfy  con- 
tingencies of  material  growth  by  an  adaptation  of  old  forms, 
and  the  duplication  rather  than  the  extension  of  administra- 
tive machinery.  The  Town  Commissioners  were  vested 
with  somewhat  broader  authority  and  remained  nominally 
in  control  of  the  general  administration  of  the  city;  but  in 
the  main,  new  functions  of  importance  were  entrusted  to 
independent  and  practically  co-ordinate  boards  or  commis- 
sions, granted  specific  authority  by  the  General  Assembly 
and  exercising  independent  financial  powers.  Thus  the 
paving,  repairing  and  cleaning  of  streets,  with  certain  allied 
functions,  were  in  1782  entrusted  to  a  special  board  of 
Street  Commissioners.  In  1783  the  general  care  of  the 
channel  and  harbor  of  Baltimore  was  vested  in  a  board  of 
Port  Wardens,  and  in  1784  the  functions  of  watching  and 
lighting  the  town  were  conferred  upon  the  then  almost  life- 
c  (17) 


l8  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF    BALTIMORE 

less  board  of  Town  Commissioners.  The  financial  history 
of  Baltimore  during  this  period  resolves  itself  into  an  ex- 
amination of  the  financial  activity  of  these  several  bodies. 

The  Board  of  Special  Commissioners. 

The  most  urgent  local  improvement  at  the  close  of  the 
War  was  the  paving,  cleaning  and  repair  of  streets.  Ar- 
thur Young's  familiar  estimate  of  the  Warrington  turn- 
pike, "  most  infamously  bad  "  and  "  made  with  a  view  to 
immediate  destruction  "  could  have  been  applied  in  all  pro- 
priety to  Baltimore  high-ways.  Sidewalks  and  cart-roads 
had  remained  entirely  unpaved  since  the  erection  of  the 
Town,  and  the  soft  soil  and  heavy  traffic  combined  to  ren- 
der many  of  them  dangerous  and  all  of  them  disreputable.* 
As  early  as  1768,  an  act  of  the  Assembly  authorized  the 
Town  Commissioners  to  expend  fines  and  forfeitures  therein 
accruing  to  "  mending  the  public  wharfs  and  streets." 
Larger  recognition  was  accorded  in  an  act  of  the  Assembly 
of  1 78 1,  authorizing  a  local  tax  on  auction  receipts.  A 
designated  person  was  appointed  Town  Auctioneer,  and 
penalties  were  imposed  upon  any  one  else  conducting  a 
public  sale  or  employing  a  person  for  that  purpose.  The 
auctioneer  was  empowered  to  charge  specified  per  centum 
fees  upon  the  values  of  various  classes  of  property  sold, 
and  was  required  to  pay  to  the  Town  Commissioners,  in 
quarterly  amount,  "  one  pound  on  every  hundred  pounds 
worth  of  property  by  him  sold,"  to  be  expended  in  mending 
and  repairing  the  streets  of  the  Town.* 

The  Town  Commissioners  appear  to  have  used  their  own 
discretion  in  the  expenditure  of  the  monies  so  accruing, 
without    strict    compliance    with    the    letter    of    the    law.' 


^  Griffiths,  "  Annals  of  Baltimore,"  p.  95. 

^  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1781,  ch.  11. 

'  "  Ordered  that  Vendue  Master  pay  to  Such  Person  as  the  Com- 
missioners shall  appoint,  such  sum  as  may  be  sufficient  to  pave  and 
post  the  Market  House  and  around  it  ";  of.  "  Records  of  the  Com- 
missioners of  Baltimore  Town  "  (AIS),  p.  36. 


THE    FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE   TOWN,    I729-I796        I9 

Whether  as  a  result  of  this  fact,  or  from  dissatisfaction  with 
the  personnel  of  the  board,  or  because  of  the  inadequacy  of 
the  fund  appropriated,  or  merely  influenced  by  the  practice 
of  entrusting  new  functions  to  new  commissions — a  radical 
change  was  effected  by  the  passage  of  an  act  in  1782  for 
"  the  speedy  application  of  the  monies  appropriated  for  re- 
pairing the  streets  in  Baltimore  Town." 

Functions,  Seven  designated  persons  were  therein  ap- 
pointed a  board  of  "  Special  Commissioners,"  to  hold  office 
for  the  term  of  five  years  during  which  the  act  was  to 
continue  in  force,  with  power  to  fill  vacancies  arising  in 
their  number  by  reason  of  death,  resignation  or  removal. 
They  were  authorized  to  "  direct  and  superintend  the  level- 
ing, pitching  and  repairing  the  streets,  and  the  building 
and  repairing  the  bridges  within  said  town  and  to  devise  and 
do  all  and  every  thing  necessary  to  promote  this  end,  which 
they  may  judge  for  the  benefit  or  advantage  of  the  said 
town  and  its  inhabitants."  ^  Baltimore  street  was  directed 
to  be  first  paved,  and  thereafter  those  streets  or  parts  of 
streets  which  were  "  most  essential  to  the  welfare  and  trade 
of  the  town,"  in  a  succession  determined  by  the  discretion 
of  the  Special  Commissioners,  until  the  completion  of  the 
whole. 

To  defray  the  expenditures  thus  incurred,  the  act  empow- 
ered the  Special  Commissioners,  (i)  to  collect  either  in 
person  or  by  a  treasurer  by  them  appointed,  the  proceeds 
of  the  auction  tax  hitherto  paid  by  the  town  auctioneer  to 
the  Town  Commissioners;  (2)  to  recover  from  the  Town 
Commissioners  "  all  monies  paid  to  them  or  in  their  hands 
by  virtue  of  their  powers  for  repairing  the  streets  of  said 
Town,"  and  (3)  to  receive  the  proceeds  of  fines  and  for- 
feitures theretofore  or  thereafter  appropriated  for  the  re- 
pair of  streets,  or  for  the  general  use  and  benefit  of  the 
Town.  If  these  appropriations  proved  inadequate,  the 
Special  Commissioners  were  authorized  to  borrow  from  the 

* "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1782  (Nov.  sess.),  ch.  17. 


20  THE   FINANCIAL   HISTORY   OF   BALTIMORE 

inhabitants  of  the  Town  the  amount  of  five  thousand 
pounds  to  be  appHed  as  directed,  for  the  ultimate  payment 
of  which  the  said  appropriations  were  pledged. 

Changed  methods  of  expenditure  rather  than  additional 
sources  of  revenue  were  provided  by  this  act,  and  the  Special 
Commissioners  found  the  means  available  for  general  street 
paving  entirely  inadequate.  A  detailed  measure  for  "  the 
more  effectual  paving  the  streets  of  Baltimore-town  "  was 
accordingly  passed  by  the  General  Assembly,  in  January 
1783.^  The  Special  Commissioners  appointed  in  the  pre- 
vious measure  were  by  this  statute  made  a  body  corporate 
by  the  name  of  the  "  Special  Commissioners  for  Baltimore- 
town."  The  incumbents  were  to  stay  in  office,  filling  va- 
cancies by  co-optation  until  1786.  Thereafter  a  method  of 
indirect  election  was  to  prevail.  Residents  of  the  Town 
qualified  to  vote  for  delegates  to  the  Assembly  or  having 
real  property  therein  above  the  value  of  thirty  pounds  were 
directed  to  elect  by  ballot  in  October  1786,  and  quinquen- 
nially  thereafter,  nine  persons  qualified  to  serve  as  delegates, 
to  be  "  Electors  of  Special  Commissioners."  These  Elec- 
tors were  directed  to  select  by  ballot  out  of  their  own  num- 
ber, having  regard  to  integrity,  industry,  ability,  and  the 
equal  representation  of  the  several  parts  of  the  Town,  seven 
Special  Commissioners  who  must  have  been  residents  of 
Baltimore  for  three  years  next  preceding  election  or  own 
real  and  personal  property  therein  above  the  value  of  five 
hundred  pounds.  Vacancies  arising  in  the  board  in  in- 
tervals between  elections  were  filled  by  the  choice  of  the 
survivors. 

The  general  maintenance  of  the  "  road-way  "  of  the  town 
— streets,  bridges,  sewers — was  thus  vested  in  the  Special 
Commissioners,  and  thereafter  until  1796  when  the  author- 
ity had  by  the  various  local  boards  of  the  Town  was  trans- 
ferred to  the  corporation  of  Baltimore  City,  this  constituted 
their  most  important  function.     In  1789  conservative  senti- 

*  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1782  (Nov.  sess.),  ch.  17. 


THE  FINANCES   OF  BALTIMORE  TOWN,    I729-I796       21 

ment  succeeded  in  enacting  a  measure  whereby  the  Special 
Commissioners  were  forbidden  to  proceed  with  the  pav- 
ing of  any  street  or  alley  until  their  choice  had  been  ap- 
proved by  the  Town  Commissioners/  Two  years  later,  this 
statute  was  repealed,  and  the  Special  Commissioners  were 
left  in  entire  control  of  the  care  of  the  city  highways/ 

Certain  additional  powers  were  from  time  to  time  inci- 
dentally conferred  upon  the  Special  Commissioners.  Such 
were  the  enforcement  of  certain  regulations  "  for  the  more 
effectual  remedy  to  extinguish  fire,"  including  authority  to 
cause  wells  to  be  sunk  and  pumps  to  be  erected  in  parts  of 
the  Town  remote  from  water-supply,  and  the  maintenance 
and  repair  of  wells  and  pumps  so  provided;'  the  appoint- 
ment of  the  assize  of  bread;*  the  extension  of  certain  streets 
to  the  water  front,"*  and  the  construction  of  sewers  in  the 
precincts  of  the  Town."  Sometimes  particular  revenues 
were  made  available  for  such  specific  purposes,  as  in  the 
sinking  of  wells  and  the  erection  of  pumps.  Otherwise 
the  charge  was  directed  to  be  paid  out  of  the  general  funds 
in  the  possession  of  the  Special  Commissioners.^ 

Revenues.  The  inadequacy  of  the  revenues  appropriated 
in  the  original  measure  appointing  Special  Commissioners 
in  1782  has  already  been  noted.  The  act  of  1783  however 
authorized  an  important  series  of  local  exactions,  which 
may  perhaps  be  said  to  constitute  virtually  the  earliest  com- 
prehensive recognition  of  local  financial  life  in  Baltimore. 
Subsequent  fiscal  legislation  until  1797  was  largely  amen- 
datory of  or  supplementary  to  this  act,  and  can  best  be 
treated  in  connection  with  the  detailed  features  of  the  meas- 

^ "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1789  (Nov.  sess.),  ch.  45. 

'^  Ibid.,  1791,  ch.  59. 

'  Ibid.,  1787,  ch.  4;  1792  (Nov.  sess.),  ch.  21. 

*  Ibid.,  1791,  ch.  C9,  sect.  14.  '^  Ibid.,  1796,  ch.  45. 

'^  Ibid.,  1792  (Nov.  sess.),  ch.  21. 

'  Thus  the  provision  directing  the  Special  Commissioners  to  pay 
the  assessors  appointed  to  regulate  the  assize  of  bread  out  "  of  any 
of  the  funds,  which,  by  the  present  laws  of  this  state,  have  or  may 
come  to  their  hands."    Ibid.,  1792  (April  sess.),  ch.  6. 


22  THE   FINANCIAL  HISTORY   OF   BALTIMORE 

ure.  The  revenues  of  the  Special  Commissioners  may  be 
distinguished  as  follows:  (i)  Fines  and  Forfeitures;  (ii)  Lot- 
teries; (iii)  Special  Assessments;  (iv)  Taxes. 

(Fines  and  Forfeitures.)  By  the  act  authorizing  their  ap- 
pointment, the  Special  Commissioners  were  put  in  receipt 
of  all  fines  and  forfeitures  theretofore  accruing  to  the  Town 
Commissioners,  whether  originally  appropriated  for  the  re- 
pair of  the  streets  or  for  the  common  benefit  of  the  Town. 
In  1782  an  additional  fine — "  tax,"  it  is  termed  in  the  stat- 
ute— of  thirty  shillings  was  imposed  upon  chimney  fires, 
and  one  of  corresponding  amount  upon  persons  convicted 
in  the  county  court  of  selling  liquors  without  licenses.  Ten 
years  later,  in  1792,  the  penalty  upon  chimney  fires  was 
curiously  adjusted  to  the  size  of  the  structure — three 
pounds,  if  a  house  of  three  stories;  twenty  shillings,  if  one 
of  two  stories,  and  fifteen  shillings,  if  one  of  one  story.^ 

Occasionally  penalties  imposed  to  enforce  authority  not 
vested  in  the  Special  Commissioners  accrued  to  this  body. 
Thus  fines  imposed  in  1791  upon  unlicensed  chimney  sweep- 
ing were  appropriated  half  to  the  informer,  half  "  to  the 
street  commissioners  for  the  paving  and  repair  of  the 
streets."  ^  The  same  act  provided  that  penalties  and  for- 
feitures arising  from  violation  of  regulations  for  gunpowder 
storage  should  be  applied  "  towards  the  expense  of  paving 
and  repairing  the  streets,"  doubtless  at  the  discretion  of  the 
Special  Commissioners.  Similarly  fines  and  forfeitures  un- 
der an  act  of  1792  to  regulate  the  exportation  of  potash 
accrued  half  to  the  prosecutor,  and  half  to  "  the  Street  or 
Special  Commissioners  of  Baltimore  Town." ' 

(Lotteries.)  From  the  early  days  of  the  Town,  quasi- 
public  lotteries  had  been  employed  to  supplement  private 
contributions  as  a  means  of  effecting  needed  local  improve- 
ments.    Regular  provision  for  a  distinctly  public  and  spe- 

^  Penalties  in  detail  were  also  imposed  by  the  act  appointing  the 
Special  Commissioners,  to  enforce  the  various  powers  therein 
conferred. 

•  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1791,  ch.  69,  sect.  29. 

*  Ibid.,  1792,  ch.  65. 


THE    FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE   TOWN,    I729-I796        23 

cifically  authorized  lottery  was  first  made  in  1791/  prob- 
ably to  obviate  the  necessity,  as  will  be  noted  hereafter,  of 
a  heavier  direct  tax.  The  Special  Commissioners  were 
therein  authorized  to  raise  annually  by  lottery  a  sum  not 
exceeding  £3500  per  annum  and  to  retain  one-third  of  the 
proceeds,  the  remaining  two-thirds  being  paid  to  the  War- 
dens of  the  Port.  The  same  act  prohibited  private  lotteries 
in  the  Town,  and  in  the  following  year  this  prohibition  was 
extended  to  the  State  at  large." 

The  curious  interweaving  of  various  authorities  in  the 
administration  of  Baltimore  Town  at  this  period  is  illus- 
trated by  the  measure  prescribed  for  the  regulation  of  the 
Baltimore  Town  lottery.  The  Special  Commissioners  were 
authorized  to  appoint,  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the 
Wardens  of  the  Port,  managers  to  conduct  the  lottery, 
whose  bond  must  be  approved  by  the  Town  Commissioners 
and  recorded  and  lodged  with  the  clerk  of  the  Baltimore 
County  Court. 

(Special  Assessments).  The  act  of  1782  authorized  the 
Special  Commissioners  to  levy  twelve  shillings  and  six  pence 
on  every  foot  front  of  "  improved  and  unimproved  lots  in 
those  parts  of  the  streets  fixed  on  to  be  paved  or  that  may 
have  been  paved,"  and  six  shillings  and  three  pence  on  sim- 
ilar lots  located  in  "  lanes  and  alleys  paved  or  to  be  paved." 
The  charge  was  to  be  assessed  and  levied  but  once,  and  the 
selection  of  the  particular  localities  to  be  paved  was  left  to 
the  direction  of  the  Special  Commissioners,  "  as  appears  to 
them  essential  to  the  growth  and  prosperity  of  the  said 
town."  The  assessment  could  be  laid  upon  tenants,  who 
were  authorized  in  such  event  to  make  a  corresponding  de- 
duction from  rental  payment. 

This  charge  was  essentially  a  special  assessment.  It  was 
*'  a  payment  made  once  and  for  all  to  defray  the  cost  of  a 
specific  improvement  to  property  undertaken  in  the  public 
interest,  and  levied  by  the  government  in  proportion  to  the 

*"Laws  of  Maryland,"  1791,  ch.  59.  *  Ibid.,  1792,  ch.  58. 


24  THE   FINANCIAL  HISTORY   OF  BALTIMORE 

particular  benefit  accruing  to  the  property  owners." '  It 
was  levied  within  a  particular  district;  not  however  as  a 
special  tax  according  to  the  general  ability  to  pay,  of  those 
residing  within  the  district,  but  "  according  to  the  individual 
benefits  accruing  to  the  owners  of  real  property."  The 
"  foot-front  rule "  was  employed  as  an  index  to  ascertain 
the  amount  of  these  individual  benefits.'' 

In  1789  upon  petition  that  "  the  price  of  materials  and 
labour  hath  fallen  very  considerably,"  the  General  Assembly 
reduced  the  assessment  charge  one  half,  or,  to  six  shillings 
and  three  pence  per  front  foot  of  street  lots,  and  to  three 
shillings  and  two  pence  of  lane  or  alley  lots,.  The  zeal  of 
the  Special  Commissioners  seems  to  have  offended  the  con- 
servative sentiment  of  the  Town,  and  a  clause  was  added, 
directing  that  streets  selected  for  paving,  hitherto  at  the 
mere  discretion  of  the  Special  Commissioners,  must  there- 
after receive  the  consent  of  the  Town  Commissioners.*  The 
reduction  came  inopportunely.  Legislative  authority  for 
the  auction  tax,  imposed  in  1781  and  renewed  in  1784,  and 
for  the  property  tax,  imposed  in  1783,  expired  in  1789,  thus 
cutting  oflf  two  important  sources  of  revenue  from  the 
Special  Commissioners.  Funds  accruing  from  other 
sources — specific  taxes,  fines,  forfeitures — were  required 
for  maintenance  and  repair,  leaving  as  the  only  fund  avail- 
able for  further  construction,  the  reduced  assessment  charge. 
This  was  promptly  found  to  be  "  greatly  inadequate  "  and 
"  not  more  than  sufficient  to  keep  the  streets  already  paved 
in  repair."  Experience  having  further  shown  that  "  the 
tax  fixing  the  rate  per  foot  at  one  price  for  streets  and  alleys 
of  diflferent  widths,  operates  unequally  and  oppressively," 
a  higher  tarifif  of  assessment  charges,  apportioned  to  the 
width  of  the  respective  streets  or  alleys  was  enacted  in  1791 
and  remained  in  force  until  the  incorporation  of  the  Town.* 

In  1787,  an  act  of  the  General  Assembly  "  for  the  more 

*  Seligman,  "  Essays  on  Taxation,"  p.  304;  Rosewater,  "  Special 
Assessments,"  p.  9. 

*  Ibid.,  pp.  63,  129-130.  '  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1789,  ch.  45. 
*Ibid.,  1791,  ch.  59. 


THE    FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE   TOWN,    I729-I796        2$ 

effectual  remedy  to  extinguish  fire  in  Baltimore  town  "  di- 
rected all  householders  assessed  for  iioo  to  provide,  under 
penalty  of  fines,  two  leather  buckets  to  hang  near  the 
front  door  for  use  in  case  of  fire.  In  addition,  the  Special 
Commissioners  were  authorized  to  cause  wells  to  be  sunk 
and  pumps  erected  in  parts  of  the  town  remote  from  water 
supply,  the  expense  thereof  "  to  be  raised  and  paid  by  the 
assessable  property  on  the  square  that  wants  such  wells  or 
pumps,  to  be  levied,  collected  and  applied  by  the  commis- 
sioners aforesaid  for  the  purpose  aforesaid."  Provision  was 
made  that  no  steps  should  be  taken  until  a  majority  of  prop- 
erty owners  on  the  square  should  have  indicated  by  peti- 
tion their  desire  th^erefor,  and  that  fines  and  forfeitures  ac- 
cruing under  the  act  should  be  used  in  part  payment  of 
this  expenditure.^ 

(General  Property  Tax).  The  most  significant  provision 
of  the  act  of  1782  was  the  authority  conferred  upon  the 
Special  Commissioners  to  levy  a  tax  "  not  exceeding  two 
shillings  six  pence  on  every  hundred  pounds  of  assessed 
property  "  within  the  Town.  The  assessment  for  the  pub- 
lic levy  was  taken  as  the  basis  of  the  local  tax.  The  Special 
Commissioners  were  authorized  to  appoint  collectors  of  the 
tax  who  among  other  things  should  "  call  upon  the  county 
commissioners  of  the  tax  to  know  the  yearly  valuation  of 
property  within  said  town  and  to  regulate  the  tax  upon 
every  £100  worth  of  property  by  said  valuation."  Appeal 
lay  to  the  Special  Commissioners  who  were  empowered  "  to 
diminish  and  add  to  such  person's  rate  or  assessment  as  to 
them  shall  seem  just  and  reasonable." 

In  1785  was  passed  "  an  act  to  ascertain  the  value  of  the 
land  in  the  several  counties  of  this  state,  for  the  purpose 
of  laying  the  public  assessment."  The  bounds  of  Balti- 
more Town  and  "  precincts  "  '  were  defined ;  local  commis- 
sioners of  the  tax  were  appointed  distinct  from  those  of 
Baltimore  County,  and  provision  was  made  for  a  distinct 

* "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1787,  ch.  4.       *  See  above,  p.  60,  note  i. 


26  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

local  assessment.  The  commissioners  of  the  tax  for  Balti- 
more Town  were  directed  to  appoint  a  proper  person  to  as- 
certain and  return  "  all  rents,  lots  and  parcels  of  ground 
of  all  kinds,  and  houses,  buildings  and  improvements,  in 
said  town  " — to  be  thereafter  valued  by  them.  As  a  rule  for 
estimating  the  value  of  local  ground-rents  in  Baltimore,  as 
in  other  towns  of  the  State,  the  local  commissioners  of  the 
tax  were  directed  to  capitalize  ground-rents  at  the  rate  of 
eight  per  cent.  They  assessed  all  improvements  and  in- 
crements in  value  upon  lessees  and  demanded  the  sum 
rated  of  the  lessees,  who  were  authorized  to  make  a  cor- 
responding deduction  from  rental  payments.  The  value  of 
rented  houses  was  determined  by  capitalizing  the  annual 
rental  at  the  rate  of  sixteen  per  cent.  Where  the  property 
was  leased  for  more  than  three  years,  the  valuation  was 
found  by  deducting  the  capitalized  rental  from  the  cur- 
rent valuation.  Other  forms  of  real  property  were  to  be 
"  valued  at  their  actual  worth  in  ready  current  money." 
No  specific  mode  was  prescribed  for  the  valuation  of  per- 
sonal property.  The  governor  of  the  State  was  directed  to 
appoint  in  Baltimore  Town  as  in  each  of  the  counties  three 
persons,  constituting  a  court  of  appeals,  to  review  upon  ap- 
peal the  valuations  of  the  commissioners  of  the  tax.^ 

In  1792  a  general  reassessment  of  real  and  personal  prop- 
erty in  the  state  was  again  authorized.  The  number  of 
commissioners  of  the  tax  for  Baltimore  Town  was  increased 
to  five  and  therein  appointed.  They  were  directed  to  se- 
lect as  assessors,  "  one  or  more  sensible  and  active  persons," 
residents  and  property  owners  of  the  Town.  In  the  valua- 
tion of  real  property,  the  provisions  of  the  act  of  1785  were 
to  prevail.  Slaves  and  silver  plate  were  to  be  valued  upon 
a  fixed  scale;  but  every  other  article  of  personal  property, 
"  at  its  actual  worth  in  ready  money  made  current  by  law," 
according  to  "  the  discretion  and  judgement  of  the  several 
assessors."     The  board  of  appeals  established  by  the  act 

^ "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1785,  ch.  53. 


THE   FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE   TOWN,    I729-I796        27 

of  1785  was  abolished,  and  the  commissioners  of  the  tax 
were  vested  with  power  of  final  review/ 

Legislative  authority  for  the  two  shillings  six  penny  prop- 
erty tax  expired  in  1790/  The  growing  burden  of  local 
and  public  charges  discouraged  its  re-enactment  and 
when  in  1791  the  necessity  arose  for  additional  revenues 
for  street  paving,  recourse  was  had  to  an  increased  paving 
assessment,  as  described,  to  additional  license  taxes  and  to 
an  annual  public  lottery,  noted  above/  Provision  was 
however  made  that  in  the  event  of  these  several  revenues 
proving  inadequate,  the  Special  Commissioners  might  levy 
a  tax  "  not  exceeding  one  shilling  and  three  pence  on  every 
iioo  of  assessable  property"  within  the  Town.  Prompt 
use  was  made  of  the  authority  conferred,  and  the  tax  was 
regularly  imposed,  at  the  maximum  rate  authorized,  until 
the  incorporation  of  the  Town. 

(Auction  Receipts  Tax).  The  origin  of  the  tax  on  auction 
receipts  has  already  been  intimated.  It  was  imposed  in 
1781,  to  remain  in  force  for  three  years,  for  the  purpose  of 
providing  the  Town  Commissioners  with  a  special  fund  for 
the  repair  of  streets.  Exclusive  auction  privileges  were 
conferred  upon  a  designated  person,  the  town  auctioneer, 
who  was  authorized  to  charge  specified  fees,  and  directed 
to  pay  to  the  Town  Commissioners  in  sworn  quarterly  ac- 
count one  per  cent,  upon  the  valuation  of  all  property  sold. 
By  the  statute  of  1782  appointing  Special  Commissioners, 
the  proceeds  of  the  tax  on  auction  receipts  were  transferred 
from  the  Town  Commissioners  to  the  Special  Commission- 
ers, but  no  change  was  made  in  the  form  of  the  tax.  This 
transfer  was  confirmed  by  the  measure  of  1783,  and  addi- 
tional fines  were  imposed  upon  "  the  vendue  master  "  for 
refusal  to  render  periodic  settlement  of  receipts — ^the 
amount  of  the  fine  to  be  adjudged  by  "  any  two  impartial 
persons,"  one  of  whom  should  be  chosen  by  the  Special 

*  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1792,  ch.  71. 

'Ibid.,  1782,  ch.  17,  sect.  2.  *  Ibid.,  1791,  ch.  59. 


28  THE   FINANCIAL   HISTORY   OF   BALTIMORE 

Commissioners,  the  other  by  the  auctioneer,  and  to  be  re- 
covered as  in  the  case  of  small  debts/ 

The  essential  provisions  of  the  statute  of  1781  were  re- 
enacted  in  1785.^  Slight  changes  were  made  in  the  amount 
of  the  prescribed  fees  and  the  town  auctioneer  was  author- 
ized to  receive  over  and  above  these  "  on  all  vessels  at  the 
rate  of  one  quarter  per  cent,  and  on  all  other  property,  ex- 
cept as  aforesaid,  at  the  rate  one  half  per  cent.,"  to  be  paid 
to  the  Special  Commissioners  of  Baltimore  Town,  as  there- 
tofore, in  quarterly  account  and  to  be  by  them  applied  to 
"  the  mending  and  paving  the  streets  thereof."  This  act 
was  to  remain  in  force  for  a  single  year;  but  at  the  follow- 
ing session  of  the  General  Assembly,  it  was  continued  for 
three  years  longer.*  Authority  for  the  tax  thus  expired  at 
the  end  of  the  legislative  session  of  1789."  At  the  following 
session  of  the  General  Assembly  the  tax  was  re-imposed; 
but  the  occasion  therefor  as  well  as  the  further  significance 
of  the  tax  are  associated  with  the  activities  of  the  Port  War- 
dens rather  than  those  of  the  Special  Commissioners,  and 
can  most  conveniently  be  considered  in  another  connection. 

(Specific  Taxes).  The  revenue  act  of  1782  imposed  an- 
nual specific  taxes  as  follows:  on  four-wheeled  riding  car- 
riages, 30  shillings;  on  chairs  and  sulkies,  15  shillings;  on 
drays,  25  shillings;  on  wagons  and  cars,  25  shillings;  on 
riding  horses,  20  shillings;  on  billiard  tables,  15  pounds. 
Tavern  houses  were  subjected  to  an  additional  charge  of  £5 
annually.  A  tax  of  £50  per  annum  was  imposed  upon  the 
play  house  of  the  Town,  and  a  license  tax,  to  be  fixed  in 
amount  by  the  Special  Commissioners,  upon  all  public  ex- 
hibitions. 

The  Special  Commissioners  were  empowered  "  to  con- 
tinue all  or  as  many  of  the  specific  taxes  above  mentioned 
as  may  be  judged  least  injurious  to  the  welfare  of  the  town, 
and  towards  a  permanent  fund  to  keep  in  repair  the  streets 

^ "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1782  (Nov.  sess.),  ch.  17,  sects.  3  and  24. 
'Ibid.,  1784,  ch.  61.  ^  Ibid.,  1785,  ch.  77. 

*  Ibid.,  1791,  ch.  59,  preamble. 


THE    FINANCES    OF    BALTIMORE   TOWN,    I729-I796       29 

and  for  the  purposes  of  this  act."  In  actual  fact  these  taxes 
were  imposed  until  the  incorporation  of  the  Town,  and  in- 
deed were  continued  thereafter. 

(Collection  and  Recovery).  The  original  act  of  1782  ap- 
pointing Special  Commissioners  merely  directed  the  pay- 
ment of  all  charges  to  "  the  said  special  commissioners,  or 
to  their  treasurer,  to  be  by  them  appointed."  The  act  of 
the  following  session  was  more  explicit.  In  addition  to  a 
clerk  and  a  treasurer,  the  appointment  was  authorized  of  one 
or  more  collectors  to  assess  the  various  charges  upon  the 
persons  liable,  to  collect  promptly,  under  penalty  for  neg- 
lect, the  sums  so  assessed,  and  to  make  periodic  returns 
thereof  to  the  treasurer.  Much  difficulty  was  however  ex- 
perienced in  the  collection  of  taxes  and  fines.  The  annual 
balance-sheets  of  the  Special  Commissioners  showed  ar- 
rearages, at  all  times  considerable  in  amount,  and  occasion- 
ally disproportionate. 

Fines,  penalties  and  forfeitures  accruing  to  the  Special 
Commissioners  were  recovered  with  costs  of  suit  by  and  in 
the  name  of  their  treasurer  before  a  justice  of  the  peace  or 
in  the  county  court.^  Civil  procedure  seems  also  to  have 
been  the  only  method  at  first  available  of  enforcing  the  pay- 
ment of  local  taxes.  In  1792  the  Special  Commissioners 
were  however  vested  with  power  to  recover  all  taxes  laid  or 
to  be  laid,  by  distress  and  sale  of  the  property  of  the  per- 
sons chargeable — the  procedure  being  as  in  cases  of  dis- 
tresses for  rent,  and  remedy  lying  in  a  writ  of  replevin  sued 
out  of  the  Baltimore  County  Court.^ 

(Gross  Receipts).  The  special  assessment  for  street  pav- 
ing— "  the  paving  tax,"  as  it  was  ordinarily  called — and  the 
tax  on  auction  sales  during  the  period  of  its  imposition, 
formed  the  most  important  items  in  the  receipts  of  the 
Special  Commissioners.  The  yield  of  the  special  assess- 
ment declined  from  1783  to  1789,  recovering  with  the  op- 
eration of  the  graduated  scale  enacted  in  1791  to  the  close 

^  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1782  (April  sess.),  ch.  39,  sect.  5;   1782 
(November  sess.),  ch.  17,  sect.  30. 
'Ibid.,  1792  (November  sess.),  ch.  21,  sect.  i. 


30  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF    BALTIMORE 

of  the  period.  The  tax  on  auction  sales  showed  an  appar- 
ent decHne  from  1783  to  1788;  but  the  parallel  increase  dur- 
ing this  period  of  the  amount  of  "  taxes  in  arrears  "  suggests 
that  this  was  in  large  measure  due  to  the  delinquency  of  the 
collector  or  auctioneer.  The  specific  and  license  taxes  were 
comparatively  inelastic,  the  increase  proceeding  largely 
from  the  tax  on  liquor  sales.  The  proceeds  from  fines  and 
forfeitures  remained  relatively  unimportant.  Perhaps  the 
most  disappointing  source  of  revenue  was  the  general  prop- 
erty tax.  This  was  due  in  part  to  general  evasion,  in  part 
to  imperfect  collection.  The  share  of  the  Special  Commis- 
sioners in  the  proceeds  of  the  Town  lottery  was  virtually 
constant,^ 

Rigidity  and  inelasticity  were  the  manifest  characteristics 
of  the  revenues  of  the  Special  Commissioners.  Specific 
funds  tending  to  slow  increase,  with  the  growth  of  the  Town, 
rather  than  general  sources  of  revenue,  were  available  for 
purposes  of  expenditure.  These  funds  proved  inadequate 
not  only  for  further  construction  and  improvement,  but 
even  for  necessary  maintenance  and  repair. 

Indebtedness.  The  earliest  exercise  of  local  borrowing 
power  was  authorized  by  the  act  of  1782  appointing  the 
Special  Commissioners,  in  the  provision  that  should  the  sev- 
eral funds  appropriated  prove  inadequate,  the  Special  Com- 
missioners might  "  borrow  to  the  amount  of  £5000  current 
money,  from  the  inhabitants  of  said  town  pledging  for  the 
discharge  thereof  the  whole  or  any  part  of  the  above  appro- 
priations." Before  any  action  was  taken  under  this  meas- 
ure, the  act  of  the  following  session  was  passed,  enlarg- 
ing the  authority  already  conferred  by  empowering  the 
Special  Commissioners  to  anticipate  by  loan  on  the  several 
taxes  authorized  "  any  sum  not  exceeding  fifty  thousand 
pounds  and  to  mortgage  the  whole  or  any  part  of  the  said 
taxes  for  the  payment  of  any  part  of  the  whole  of  such  sum 
so  borrowed." 

No  evidence  appears  of  any  formal  exercise  of  the  bor- 

*  See  Appendix  A. 


THE    FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE   TOWN,    I729-I796        3I 

rowing  power  thus  conferred.  The  provision  however  gave 
undoubted  credit  to  the  warrants  of  the  Special  Commis- 
sioners, and  was  thus  directly  responsible  for  the  accumu- 
lation of  an  appreciable  floating  indebtedness.  Bills  for 
work  performed  were  paid  by  the  Special  Commissioners  in 
the  form  of  orders  upon  the  treasurer.  When  the  funds 
of  the  board  were  exhausted,  as  was  ordinarily  the  case,  the 
unpaid  orders  simply  accumulated  without  appearing  to 
have  exercised  any  correspondingly  unfavorable  influence 
upon  the  credit  of  the  board.  Upon  the  incorporation  of 
Baltimore  in  1796,  the  unpaid  orders  then  outstanding  to 
the  amount  of  some  ten  thousand  dollars  were  assumed  as 
a  floating  debt  by  the  city  government,  and  by  the  exer- 
cise of  economy  in  expenditure  together  with  the  increase 
in  municipal  revenues  were  paid  within  a  few  years. 

Audit.  The  act  of  1782  appointing  the  Special  Com- 
missioners, required  them  to  render  an  annual  account  of 
receipts  and  expenditures  to  the  Town  Commissioners  and 
to  publish  a  copy  thereof  in  the  first  month  of  every  year  in 
the  newspapers  of  Baltimore.^  The  revenue  measure  of 
the  following  session  provided  for  more  careful  audit  by 
authorizing  the  annual  election  by  voters  of  the  Town,  of 
three  Comptrollers  of  Accounts  who  should  examine  and 
certify  to  the  correctness  or  error  of  the  annual  account  of 
the  Special  Commissioners  and  should  append  this  certifi- 
cate to  the  published  account*  The  reports  published  were 
mere  summarized  balance  sheets.  The  statement  was  occa- 
sionally appended  that  the  particular  items  of  expenditure 
were  too  numerous  for  insertion  in  the  printed  report,  but 
might  be  examined  in  the  books  of  the  board.  The  certifi- 
cate of  the  Comptrollers  was  usually  printed  with  the  report. 

The  Board  of  Port  Wardens. 

Functions.  The  rapid  development  of  local  commerce 
during  and  immediately  after  the  Revolutionary  War  cen- 

^ "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1782  (April  sess.),  ch.  39,  sect.  8. 
^  Ibid.,  1782  (November  sess.),  ch.  17,  sect.  28. 


32  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF    BALTIMORE 

tered  attention  upon  the  condition  of  the  wharves  and  har- 
bor of  Baltimore,  and  made  apparent  the  necessity  of  more 
careful  supervision  of  shipping  than  that  theretofore  nomi- 
nally exercised  by  the  Town  Commissioners.  In  June, 
1783,  the  General  Assembly  appointed  nine  residents  of  the 
Town  as  "  Wardens  of  the  Port "  to  hold  office  until  Oc- 
tober, 1786,  and  to  be  elected  thereafter  every  five  years  by 
the  Electors  of  the  Special  Commissioners.  The  Wardens 
were  authorized  to  appoint  a  clerk  and  a  treasurer,  to  sur- 
vey and  chart  the  harbor,  to  define  the  channel  by  buoys 
and  water  marks,  and  to  clean  and  remove  obstructions 
from  the  basin.  The  construction  and  extension  of  private 
wharves  were  made  subject  to  the  supervision  of  the  Board, 
and  general  authority  was  conferred  to  make  and  enforce 
regulations  for  the  protection  of  the  harbor  and  the  preser- 
vation of  navigation,  provided  that  such  ordinances  were 
given  due  publicity  and  were  not  repugnant  to  exisiting 
law.^  These  powers  were  enlarged  somewhat  in  1788  and 
confirmed  in  1791.' 

The  total  expenditures  of  the  Port  Wardens,  for  repair- 
ing wharves,  surveying  the  channel  and  dredging  and  clean- 
ing the  harbor  were  inconsiderable  up  to  1791.  There- 
after occurred  a  gradual  increase  to  1795.  The  administra- 
tive expenses  of  the  board  were  throughout  disproportion- 
ate to  the  work  performed.  The  act  of  1783  fixed  the  com- 
pensation of  the  chairman  at  ys.  6d.  and  that  of  other  mem- 
bers of  the  board,  at  $s.  per  diem.  In  addition,  the  act  of 
1783  appropriated  to  the  treasurer  of  the  board  a  commis- 
sion of  two  and  a  half  per  cent,  on  all  monies  received  and 
authorized  the  naval  officer  of  the  port  to  deduct  his  usual 
commission  from  the  proceeds  of  the  tonnage  tax.' 

Revenues.  The  original  measure  of  1783  appointing  Port 
Wardens,  provided  (sect.  16)  that  all  expenditures  incurred 
under  the  act,  including  the  remuneration  of  the  Wardens, 
should  be  defrayed  from  out  the  specific  revenues  therein 

* "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1783  (April  sess.),  ch.  24. 

''Ibid.,  1788,  ch.  20;  1791,  ch.  60.  'See  Appendix  B. 


THE   FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE   TOWN,    I729-I796        33 

appropriated.  Subsequent  legislation  from  time  to  time 
changed  the  precise  nature  of  these  revenues;  but  the  en- 
tire independence  of  the  financial  operations  of  the  Port 
Wardens  was  not  thereby  affected.  The  receipts  of  the 
board  may  be  distinguished,  for  closer  examination,  as  ac- 
cruing from:  (i)  Fines  and  Penalties;  (ii)  Lotteries;  (iii) 
Taxation. 

(Fines  and  Penalties).  The  Port  Wardens  were  au- 
thorized by  the  act  of  1783  to  impose  fines  not  exceeding 
fifty  pounds,  for  the  violation  of  all  rules  and  regulations 
by  them  established.  Such  fines  were  recoverable  by  civil 
suit  before  a  magistrate,  as  in  the  case  of  small  debts,  the 
usual  appeal  lying  to  the  Baltimore  County  Court. 

(Lotteries).  The  circumstances  leading  to  the  institu- 
tion of  the  Town  lottery  in  1791  have  been  described  in 
another  connection.  The  most  important  source  of  the 
Port  Wardens'  revenues  had  been  cut  oflf  in  1789.  The  re- 
sultant deficit  was  doubtless  responsible  for  the  provision 
in  the  act  of  1791,  that  two-thirds  of  the  annual  profits  of 
the  lottery  should  be  paid  to  the  Wardens  "  for  the  deepen- 
ing and  cleaning  of  the  harbour  and  basin."  ^  In  practice, 
the  lottery  appears  to  have  been  conducted  by  a  joint  board, 
composed  of  five  Port  Wardens  and  three  Special  Commis- 
sioners, instead  of  by  appointed  managers  as  authorized. 
The  gross  value  of  the  lottery  was  ordinarily  $50,000,  and 
the  net  amount  to  be  raised,  $8,510,  something  less  than  the 
sum  actually  authorized '  (£3500). 

(Tonnage  Duty).  The  act  of  1783  appointing  the  Port 
Wardens,  empowered  them  to  "  impose  on  every  vessel  en- 
tering or  clearing  at  said  port  one  penny  per  ton."  The 
naval  officer  of  the  port  was  directed  to  levy  the  tax  and, 
after  deducting  his  commission,  to  pay  the  proceeds  in  quar- 
terly account,  to  the  Wardens.     This  tax  was  to  remain  in 

*  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1791,  ch.  59,  sect.  7. 

'  See  announcement  of  the  lottery  in  The  Baltimore  Daily  Ititel- 
ligencer,  April  16,  1794;  and  in  The  Federal  Intelligencer  and  Baltimore 
Daily  Gazette,  March  30,  1795. 


34  THE   FINANCIAL  HISTORY   OF   BALTIMORE 

force  "  till  a  sufficient  sum  shall  be  raised  for  defraying  the 
expense  aforesaid."  The  proceeds  of  the  charge  proved  en- 
tirely inadequate  for  necessary  expenditures,  and  in  1788' 
the  maximum  levy  was  raised  to  "  two  pence  current  money 
per  ton,"  and  pilot  boats  and  vessels  not  coming  from  sea 
and  belonging  to  residents  of  Maryland  were  exempted 
from  the  charge.  The  adoption  in  1789  of  the  federal  con- 
stitution, which  Maryland  had  ratified  in  the  year  preceding, 
annulled  the  power  of  the  state  to  lay  a  local  tonnage  duty, 
and  cut  off  the  revenues  of  the  Wardens  accruing  from  this 
source. 

In  1790  the  then  nugatory  provision  for  the  tonnage  duty 
was  repealed  by  the  legislature,  and  a  lower  tax  was  im- 
posed of  two  cents  per  ton  upon  every  vessel  entering  the 
port — to  go  into  effect  upon  confirmation  of  the  act  by 
legislation  of  the  federal  government.''  No  action  was 
taken  by  Congress,  and  in  1791  the  legislature  again  au- 
thorized the  same  duty,  in  identical  terms  and  subject  to 
the  same  condition.*  It  proved  equally  inoperative  from 
lack  of  the  requisite  federal  ratification.  Not  until  May 
12,  1796,  a  few  months  before  the  incorporation  of  Balti- 
more, was  such  confirmation  obtained  from  the  federal  gov- 
ernment.* 

(Auction  Receipts  Tax),  The  expenditures  of  the  War- 
dens from  1790  to  1797  were  largely  defrayed  from  another 
source.  Authority  for  the  auction  tax,  the  proceeds  of 
which  at  first  accrued  to  the  Town  Commissioners  and 
later  to  the  Special  Commissioners,  expired  in  1789.  At 
the  following  session  of  the  General  Assembly  the  tax 
was  reimposed,  but  with  important  changes,.  Two  auction- 
eers' offices  were  established,  with  two  incumbents  in  each 
office.  Vacancies  were  filled  and  removals  were  made  by 
the  Governor  and  Council.  The  exclusive  privilege  of  sell- 
ing goods  at  auction  was  conferred  as  before  upon  the  per- 

*  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1788,  ch.  20.  *  Ibid.,  1790,  ch.  22. 
'  Ibid.,  1791,  ch.  60. 

*  By  an  act  of  the  first  session  of  the  Fourth  Congress,  ch.  xxvi. 


THE    FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE   TOWN,    I729-I796        35 

sons  SO  appointed,  and  penalties  imposed  upon  other  per- 
sons doing  so.  The  auctioneers  were  authorized  to  charge 
specified  fees  and  were  directed  to  pay  to  the  Port  Wardens 
in  quarterly  account  at  the  rate  of  five  shillings  for  every 
hundred  pounds,  or  one  fourth  of  one  per  cent.,  towards 
defraying  "  the  expense  of  cleaning  and  deepening  the 
basin."  The  act  was  to  remain  in  force  for  a  period  of  seven 
years.^ 

The  passage  of  the  act  was  received  with  marked  dissat- 
isfaction in  Baltimore.  This  hostility  was  directed  less 
against  the  burden  or  amount  of  the  tax  than  against  the 
form  of  its  imposition.  A  meeting  of  the  most  influential 
citizens  of  the  Town,  held  on  January  4,  1791,  issued  a 
formal  protest  against  the  action  of  the  General  Assembly 
in  "  increasing  and  confirming  a  nuisance  which  it  has  been 
their  anxious  desire  to  remove."  The  grant  of  exclusive 
privileges  to  a  handful  of  men,  it  was  declared,  not  only 
tended  to  enrich  the  few  at  the  expense  of  the  many,  but 
was  the  creation  of  a  monopoly,  in  violation  of  the  express 
declaration  of  the  Maryland  Bill  of  Rights.  In  conclusion 
the  subscribers  pledged  themselves  to  make  no  purchases  of 
goods  sold  at  public  auction,  nor  to  patronize  importers 
who  acted  otherwise."  Despite  this  vigorous  protest,  the 
statute  remained  unchanged  and  in  force  until  its  expiration 
in  1797 — almost  coincident  with  the  incorporation  of  Bal- 
timore. 

(Gross  Receipts).  The  revenues  of  the  Port  Wardens  in- 
creased steadily  after  1786.  The  tonnage  duty  and  the  tax 
on  auction  receipts  were  the  important  sources.  Fines  and 
wharfage  receipts  added  much  smaller  but  not  insignifi- 
cant amounts.  The  aggregate  receipts  of  the  Port  War- 
dens were  in  regular  excess  of  their  disbursements  and  the 
net  balance  accumulated.  An  annual  statement  of  the  fi- 
nancial operations  of  the  board  was  published  in  the  news- 
papers of  Baltimore.     These  statements  as  published,  like 

^  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1790,  ch.  12. 

*  Maryland  Journal  and  Baltimore  Advertiser,  January  11,  1791. 


36  THE   FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

the   balance   sheets   of   the   Special   Commissioners,   were 
mere  unitemized  summaries/ 

The  Board  of  Town  Commissioners. 

The  ordinary  duties  of  the  Town  Commissioners  were  re- 
stricted, after  the  appointment  of  the  boards  of  Special 
Commissioners  and  of  Port  Wardens,  to  the  determination 
of  lot  boundaries,  the  regulation  of  the  Town  markets  and 
the  supervision  of  merchandise  inspection.  With  these  du- 
ties went  in  theory  a  general  superintendence  of  the  ad- 
ministrative affairs  of  the  city,  limited  however  in  practice 
to  a  discretionary  assent  to  powers  otherwise  exercised, 
such  as  the  approval  of  streets  selected  for  paving  by  the 
Special  Commissioners,''  or  acceptance  of  the  bond  of  the 
managers  of  the  Town  lottery. 

The  slight  expenditures  required  for  these  several  pur- 
poses appear  to  have  been  almost  entirely  defrayed  by  the 
receipts  from  market  licenses  and  stall  rentals.  All  other 
regular  revenues  theretofore  accruing  to  the  Town  Commis- 
sioners— fines,  penalties,  forfeitures,  the  tax  on  auction 
sales — were  transferred  to  the  Special  Commissioners  by 
the  act  authorizing  their  appointment,  while  subsequent 
revenues  were  uniformly  appropriated  for  specific  purposes. 

The  Town  Commissioners  were  from  time  to  time  vested 
with  the  discharge  of  particular  duties.  In  such  event  the 
expenditures  involved  were  defrayed  by  the  appropriation 
of  specific  revenues.  In  1784,  two  commissions  of  nine 
and  six  persons,  respectively,  were  appointed  to  erect  new 
market  houses  in  the  Town.  The  Town  Commissioners 
were  however  authorized  to  provide  the  revenues  therefor 
by  the  sale  of  the  old  market-house  and  site."  An  act  of 
the  same  session  directed  the  Town  Commissioners  to  cause 
a  new  survey  of  the  Town  to  be  made  and  to  defray  the 

^  See  Appendix  B. 

^  See  above,  p.  21 ;  also  "  Records  of  the  Town  Commissioners  " 
(MS),  February  25,  1791. 
*  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1784,  ch.  62. 


THE    FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE   TOWN,    I729-I796        37 

expenditures  incurred  from  out  "  the  street  tax  "  {i.  e.  the 
direct  property  tax)  levied  by  the  Special  Commissioners/ 

As  Baltimore  grew  in  area  and  population,  the  exercise 
of  two  functions  inevitably  associated  with  local  growth  be- 
came necessary,  (i)  widening  and  extending  streets  and 
(2)  lighting  and  watching  the  town.  The  methods  pursued 
by  the  legislature  in  providing  for  these  local  needs  indicate 
the  characteristic  reluctance  of  that  body  to  entrust  new 
functions  to  the  Town  Commissioners  or  to  other  existing 
local  authorities. 

Street  Reconstruction.  In  1783  occurred  the  first  of  a  long 
series  of  laborious,  costly  attempts  to  remedy  the  defects 
in  the  original  arrangement  of  the  Town  as  in  that  of  suc- 
cessive additions.  Upon  the  representation  of  a  number  of 
inhabitants  of  Baltimore  that  great  inconvenience  arose 
from  the  narrowness  of  Hanover-lane,  the  Town  Commis- 
sioners were  empowered  to  widen  the  lane  to  the  width  of 
the  connecting  street.  The  plan  proposed  by  the  petitioners 
to  defray  the  expenditures  involved  was  adopted  in  the 
statute — a  special  assessment  upon  property  owners  bene- 
fited, equivalent  to  the  amount  of  damages  awarded. 

(Special  Assessment).  The  Town  Commissioners  were 
directed  to  file  with  the  clerk  of  the  county  court  a  plat 
showing  the  extent  and  limits  of  the  proposed  alteration. 
Then  having  given  ten  days'  notice  of  their  intention,  they 
were  directed  to  meet  to  ascertain  the  damages  sustained 
by  any  persons  by  the  alteration,  and  to  determine  the  va- 
rious proportions  of  this  amount  which  should  be  paid  by 
the  several  persons  benefited  in  accordance  with  the  par- 
ticular advantage  derived  therefrom,  both  of  which  returns 
should  likewise  be  lodged  in  the  office  of  the  clerk  of  the 
county  court.  The  Town  Commissioners  were  made  a 
body  politic  to  sue  for  the  recovery  of  benefits  assessed,  for 
the  use  of  the  persons  to  whom  the  damages  had  been 
awarded.*    A  year  later  (upon  representation  that  the  Town 

^  "  Laws  of  Maryland."  1784,  ch.  39.  '  Ibid.,  1783,  ch.  22. 


38  THE   FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

Commissioners  had  not,  through  misapprehension  of  the 
measure,  assessed  all  persons  benefited  for  the  damages  in- 
curred), a  supplementary  act  was  passed  directing  the  Town 
Commissioners  to  give  twenty,  instead  of  ten  days  notice, 
to  assess  all  property  benefited,  regardless  of  its  location, 
and  in  their  discretion  to  summon  a  jury  of  twelve  free- 
holders to  award  damages  and  to  assess  benefits  in  any  or 
all  cases/ 

The  local  charge  thus  imposed  is  of  particular  interest 
as  probably  the  earliest  use  in  Baltimore  of  a  special  assess- 
ment with  estimation  of  particular  benefit  in  each  case.  The 
distinctive  feature  of  the  "  paving  tax,"  which  the  Special 
Commissioners  had  been  authorized  to  impose  in  the  year 
preceding,  was  the  assessment  of  benefit  by  the  imposition 
of  a  definite  charge  in  proportion  to  frontage.  In  the  pres- 
ent act  as  in  a  long  succession  of  analogous  measures  there 
appear  the  essential  features  of  the  modern  Baltimore  special 
assessment  as  crystallized  in  subsequent  legislation  of  the 
General  Assembly  of  Maryland.^ 

There  is  no  evidence  as  to  the  manner  in  which  the  Town 
Commissioners  succeeded  in  the  exercise  of  the  power  of 
eminent  domain,  and  in  the  levy  of  the  special  assessment 
in  1783,  other  than  the  mere  fact  that  Hanover-lane  was 
actually  widened.  Whatever  the  results  may  have  been, 
they  were  not  enough  to  persuade  the  legislature  again  to 
vest  this  function  in  the  Town  Commissioners.     In  1792  it 

* "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1784,  ch.  46. 

*  It  is  possible  that  this  is  one  of  the  earliest  practical  uses  of 
a  special  assessment  of  this  character  in  the  United  States.  Dr. 
Rosewater  has  found  the  modern  origin  of  the  special  assessment 
in  an  English  statute  of  1667,  and  Prof.  Seligman  has  called  atten- 
tion to  an  earlier  act  of  1662,  containing  the  same  principle.  The 
spirit  and  the  letter  of  the  English  statute  of  1667  were  reproduced 
in  a  New  York  provincial  law  of  1691.  Although  this  law  re- 
mained upon  the  statute  book,  it  appears  that  little  or  no  actual 
use  was  made  of  the  principle  of  betterment  until  the  practical  re- 
enactment  of  the  measure  after  the  revolution  of  the  new  common- 
wealth government  of  April,  1787,  four  years  after  the  passage  of 
the  present  act.     Cf.  Rosewater,  "  Special  Assessments,"  p.  23. 


THE   FINANCES   OF  BALTIMORE  TOWN,    I729-I796       39 

became  desirable  to  construct  an  approach  to  the  central 
market  from  the  western  part  of  the  Town.  It  was  impos- 
sible to  effect  the  improvement  save  by  the  exercise  of  the 
right  of  eminent  domain.  Five  designated  persons  were 
accordingly  appointed  commissioners  with  authority  to  lay 
out  and  open  a  series  of  streets  for  this  purpose,  and  to 
award  damages  and  assess  benefits  as  in  the  act  of  1783. 
Provision  was  made  that  in  the  event  of  the  appointed  com- 
missioners neglecting  to  award  and  assess,  the  sheriff  of 
Baltimore  County  should  summon  a  jury  of  seven  freehold- 
ers who  should  carry  out  the  intention  of  the  act.  A  clause 
was  added  to  the  effect  that  no  street  should  be  opened  or 
extended  until  the  damages  awarded  had  actually  been  paid.* 
Similarly  in  1795,  the  necessity  having  arisen  for  a  road 
leading  from  the  western  and  southwestern  parts  to  the 
southern  part  of  the  Town,  five  designated  commissioners 
were  authorized  to  extend  Pratt  street  westerly,  and  to 
award  damages  and  to  assess  benefits  for  this  purpose.' 

Authority  to  lay  out  and  open  streets,  subject  however 
to  an  important  limitation,  was  conferred  upon  the  Town 
Commissioners  by  the  act  of  1784  authorizing  a  new  sur- 
vey of  the  town,  as  already  noted.  The  Town  Commis- 
sioners were  therein  vested  with  general  power,  "  to  survey, 
alter,  amend  and  lay  out  anew,  the  streets,  lanes  and  alleys, 
running  through  the  same,  with  the  consent  of  the  proprie- 
tors thereof,  or  their  guardians,  first  had  and  obtained,  and 
at  their  own  expense."  They  were  further  directed  to  open 
streets  on  land  reclaimed  along  the  water  front,  subject  to 
the  same  conditions.*  Thereafter  until  the  incorporation  of 
Baltimore,  the  activity  of  the  Town  Commissioners  in  open- 
ing and  extending  streets  was  confined  within  the  narrow 
province  here  outlined. 

* "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1792,  ch.  27.  The  contingency  provided 
for  actually  occurred,  and  the  award  and  assessments  were  made 
by  the  seven  jurors.    Ibid.,  1794,  ch.  38. 

* "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1795,  ch.  58. 

'  Repealed  and  re-enacted  with  changes  by  ibid.,  1794,  ch.  62. 


40  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

Watching  and  Lighting.  The  first  general  provision  for 
policing  and  lighting  Baltimore  was  made  by  the  General 
Assembly  in  1784  by  the  passage  of  an  act  "  for  the  estab- 
lishment and  regulation  of  a  night  watch  and  the  erection 
of  lamps,  in  Baltimore-town,"  ^  The  Town  Commissioners 
were  therein  authorized  to  contract  for  the  erection  and 
maintenance  of  as  many  street  lamps,  and  also  for  as  many 
watchmen  as  might  be  deemed  necessary.  The  Commis- 
sioners were  constituted  justices  of  the  peace  with  authority 
to  appoint  constables,  who  in  turn  should  superintend  the 
watch  and  "  use  their  best  endeavors  to  prevent  fires,  mur- 
ders, burglaries,  robberies  and  other  outrages  and  disor- 
ders." 

To  defray  the  expenditures  involved  in  the  exercise  of 
these  functions,  certain  revenues,  ordinary  and  extraordi- 
nary, were  appropriated.  The  heavy  initial  cost  was  met 
by  the  appropriation  of  the  proceeds  of  the  2s.  6d.  general 
property  tax  levied  by  the  Special  Commissioners  in  1785; 
and  the  proceeds  of  the  tax  on  auction  receipts  accruing 
likewise  to  the  Special  Commissioners  in  1785.  The  ordi- 
nary revenues  provided  were:  (i)  Fines  and  penalties;  (ii) 
surplus  revenues  from  the  existing  license  tax  on  liquor 
sales  in  Baltimore;  (iii)  taxation.  The  Town  Commission- 
ers were  authorized  to  appoint  a  treasurer  subject  to  the 
same  rules  and  regulations  as  the  treasurer  of  the  Special 
Commissioners,  and  to  keep  an  exact  account  of  receipts 
and  expenditures,  subject  to  the  inspection  of  the  Town 
Comptrollers. 

(Fines  and  Penalties).  Fines  were  imposed  in  detail  for 
violations  of  provisions  of  the  act.  These  were  recoverable 
in  the  manner  of  small  debts  and  were  appropriated  "  to- 
wards defraying  the  charges  of  the  said  lamps  and  watches." 

(License  Tax).  By  an  act  of  the  same  session  (1784) 
erecting  the  University  of  Maryland,  the  proceeds  of  the  ex- 
isting state  license  tax  on  ordinary  keepers  and  liquor  re- 

* "  Laws  of  Maryland,"   1784,  ch.  69. 


THE   FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE   TOWN,    I729-I796        4I 

tailers,  in  so  far  as  derived  from  the  western  shore  of  the 
state,  were  appropriated  to  the  new  foundation."  A  provis- 
ion of  the  Baltimore  "  watch  act "  was  to  the  effect  that 
should  the  aggregate  funds  appropriated  to  the  University 
exceed  the  sum  of  ii750  current  money,  then  the  surplus 
of  the  monies  collected  from  Baltimore  for  ordinary  and 
retailers'  licenses  should  be  applied  in  part  discharge  of  the 
expenses  of  the  act/ 

(General  Property  Tax).  The  most  important  fiscal  pro- 
vision of  the  measure  was  the  authority  conferred  upon  the 
Town  Commissioners  to  assess  and  levy  a  tax  not  exceeding 
IS.  6d.  on  every  iioo  of  legally  assessed  property  in 
the  Town,  to  be  collected  in  the  same  manner  and  subject 
to  the  same  regulations  as  the  public  tax.  To  aid  in  pro- 
viding immediate  revenues,  a  levy  for  the  current  year, 
upon  the  valuation  of  property  made  in  1783,  was  author- 
ized, and  the  county  collector  was  authorized  to  make  col- 
lections.' The  entire  act  was  to  remain  in  force  for  three 
years.  It  was  renewed  in  1787  and  in  1795  for  seven  and 
three  years  respectively  and  was  made  a  perpetual  law  in 
the  act  incorporating  Baltimore  as  a  city.* 

(House  Tax).  The  ordinary  revenues  in  aggregate  appro- 
priated by  the  act  of  1784  soon  proved  inadequate.  On 
March  15,  1787,  the  Town  Commissioners  resolved  to  dis- 
charge the  watch  "  if  the  Funds  which  are  appropriated  for 
carrying  them  on  are  insufficient  or  cannot  be  collected."  * 
Whatever  result  may  have  attended  this  declaration,  cer- 
tainly no  relief  was  afforded  until  1792  when  authority  was 
conferred  for  the  imposition  of  an  interesting  house  tax.' 

*  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1784  ch.  37. 
'Ibid.,  1784,  ch.  69,  sect.  17. 

*  In  actual  fact  the  Town  Commissioners  at  first  received  the 
proceeds  of  the  tax  from  the  sheriff  and  only  subsequently  from 
the  county  collector  of  Baltimore  County.  See  "  Records  of  Town 
Commissioners  "  (MS),  p.  49. 

*"Laws  of  Maryland,"  1787,  ch.  38;  1795,  ch.  83;  1796,  ch.  68. 
"  "  Records  of  the  Town  Commissioners  "  (MS),  p.  53. 
• "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1792,  ch.  69. 


42  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

The  justices  of  the  criminal  court  of  Baltimore  County, 
instead  of  the  Town  Commissioners,  were  therein  au- 
thorized to  appoint  one  or  more  persons  to  make  an 
enumeration  of  all  dwelling-houses,  storehouses  and  ware- 
houses in  the  Town,  noting  the  names  of  the  dwellers  and 
occupiers  thereof,  and  the  number  of  stories  of  each  build- 
ing. On  this  return  the  justices  were  directed  to  levy  taxes 
as  follows: 

"  On  every  three  story  dwelling-house,  store-house  or 
warehouse,  fifteen  shillings  current  money;  on  every  two 
story  dwelling-house,  storehouse  or  warehouse  ten  shil- 
lings current  money;  on  every  one  story  dwelling-house, 
storehouse  or  warehouse,  five  shillings  current  money;  but, 
in  case  any  three  story  house  shall  not  be  more  than  eigh- 
teen feet  front  on  any  street,  lane  or  alley,  then  and  in  that 
case  the  said  house  shall  be  taxed  at  the  rate  of  ten  shil- 
lings current  money;  and  in  case  any  two  story  house  shall 
be  above  thirty  feet  front  on  any  street,  lane  or  alley,  that 
then  and  in  that  case  the  said  house  shall  be  taxed  at  the 
rate  of  fifteen  shillings  current  money;  which  said  tax  shall 
be  imposed,  levied  and  collected,  annually,  one  third  thereof 
from  the  owner  or  owners,  and  two  thirds  from  the  occu- 
piers or  tenants  of  such  dwelling  house,  storehouse  or  ware- 
house." 

The  tax  thus  imposed  was  to  remain  in  force  until  Octo- 
ber 30,  1793,  or  until  the  end  of  the  legislative  session  hap- 
pening thereafter.  Distinct  machinery  for  its  collection  was 
provided  by  authorizing  the  justices  to  appoint  one  or  more 
bonded  collectors  who  should  be  subject  to  the  regulations 
imposed  upon  the  county  sheriff  in  the  collection  of  the 
public  tax,  and  who  should  complete  all  collections  within 
twenty  days  after  publication  had  been  made  of  its  imposi- 
tion. The  proceeds  were  to  be  paid  to  the  treasurer  of  the 
Town  Commissioners,  appointed  in  the  act  of  1784,  and 
were  specifically  appropriated  as  a  fund  for  "  the  regulating 
a  night-watch,  and  the  erection  of  lamps,  in  the  said  town, 
and  for  no  other  purpose."     The  justices  were  directed  to 


THE    FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE   TOWN,    I729-I796        43 

lay  an  account  of  all  receipts  and  disbursements  accruing 
from  the  act  before  the  Town  Comptrollers,  who  were  to  ap- 
prove or  disapprove  and  to  publish  the  same. 

It  seems  likely  that  the  idea  of  a  house  tax  was  suggested 
by  the  use  of  this  fiscal  device  in  England.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  curious  adjustment  of  tax  to  height  and  frontage, 
and  the  division  of  burden  between  owner  and  occupier 
appear  to  be  distinctive  features  of  the  Baltimore  tax. 

Transfer  of  Functions.  The  reluctance  of  the  legislature 
to  vest  any  further  powers  in  the  Town  Commissioners  evi- 
denced in  the  recognition  of  Special  Commissioners,  Port 
Wardens,  County  Justices,  has  been  repeatedly  noticed. 
This  distrust  culminated  in  1793,  when  the  Town  Com- 
missioners were  stripped  of  authority  for  watching  and 
lighting  the  Town,  conferred  in  1784  and  curtailed  in  1793. 
Thereafter  until  the  incorporation  of  Baltimore  in  1796,  the 
administrative  importance  and  fiscal  activity  of  the  Town 
Commissioners  were  slight  and  virtually  the  same  as  in  the 
period  between  1782  and  1784. 

The  act  of  1793  erected  a  Court  of  Oyer  and  Terminer 
and  Gaol  Delivery  in  Baltimore  county,  composed  of  a 
chief  justice  and  four  associate  justices,  to  try  all  cases 
hitherto  heard  before  the  criminal  court  of  the  county.  The 
several  powers  vested  in  the  Town  Commissioners  by  the 
act  of  1784  were  formally  transferred  to  the  justices  so  ap- 
pointed, who  were  further  authorized  to  levy  the  house  tax 
until  October,  1794,  or  until  the  end  of  the  legislative  ses- 
sion thereafter,  in  the  manner  provided  by  the  act  of  1792, 
and  to  impose  a  dog  tax  of  ys.  6d.,  the  proceeds  to  form  a 
further  fund  towards  defraying  the  expenses  of  watching 
and  lighting  the  Town.' 

In  1794  the  powers  vested  in  the  Court  of  Oyer  and  Ter- 
miner and  Gaol  Delivery,  doubtless  including  the  levy  of 
the  house  tax,  were  transferred  to  the  Baltimore  County 
Court.^     Finally,  in  a  supplementary  measure  of  1795,  the 

*  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1793,  ch.  57. 
"  Ibid.,  1794,  ch.  65. 


44  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

house  tax  was  specifically  repealed  and  the  justices  of  the 
county  court  were  authorized  to  levy  in  lieu  thereof  a  direct 
tax  sufficient — in  connection  with  the  funds  already  pro- 
vided by  law — for  the  support  of  the  town  watch  and  the 
erection  and  maintenance  of  lamps/  No  change  was  made 
in  the  machinery  of  collection,  but  the  associate  justices  of 
the  county  court  were  directed  to  meet  weekly  in  the  Town 
to  receive  reports  from  the  night  watch,  and  to  direct  its 
movements.  By  the  same  act  the  justices  of  the  county 
court  were  directed  to  levy  on  the  assessed  property  of  the 
Town  and  on  "  the  wharfs  adjoining  thereto,"  the  expendi- 
tures of  a  local  committee  of  health  during  the  current  year, 
to  be  collected  in  the  same  manner  as  the  county  levy.  A 
further  anomalous  provision  directed  that  the  expenses  at- 
tending the  act,  and  the  cost  of  repairing  the  bridges  of 
Baltimore  Town  to  an  amount  not  exceeding  iioo  should 
be  paid  by  Baltimore  County  and  collected  with  the  county 
assessment.  The  entire  act  was  to  continue  in  force  until 
January  30,  1798. 

On  December  31,  1796,  Baltimore  Town  was  incorpo- 
rated. The  functions  of  watching  and  lighting  were  vested 
in  the  corporation  and  the  original  measure  of  1784  en- 
acted into  a  perpetual  law,  subject  however  to  future 
amendment  and  revision  at  will.  The  "  watch  tax "  au- 
thorized in  the  act  of  1795  could  thus  have  been  levied  only 
once,  if  at  all.  No  use  was  made  of  the  authority  confer- 
red by  the  same  act  to  assess  the  expenditures  incurred  by 
the  health  committee  upon  the  Town,  and  it  is  possible  that 
the  watch  tax  was  similarly  allowed  to  go  by  default. 

Revenues  and  expenditures.  Neither  details  nor  summa- 
ries of  the  financial  activities  of  the  Town  Commissioners 
have  been  preserved.  After  1789,  the  published  balance 
sheets  of  the  Baltimore  County  Court  distinguish  the  re- 
ceipts and  expenditures  of  the  Court  in  account  with  Balti- 
more Town.' 

*  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1794,  ch.  29.  *  See  Appendix  C. 


THE    FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE   TOWN,    I729-I796        45 

Resume. 

A  convenient  resume  of  the  foregoing  will  be  afforded 
by  tracing  the  status  of  the  individual  resident  and  property- 
owner  of  Baltimore,  with  respect  to  local  services  and  bur- 
dens, in  the  period  surveyed. 

In  the  first  period,  from  1729  to  1744,  residence  in  Balti- 
more Town  merely  involved  convenient  location  with  re- 
spect to  a  port  of  entry.  Public  services  were  rendered  and 
public  charges  were  imposed  by  county  justices  or  parish 
vestry  within  the  Town,  precisely  as  in  the  county  or  parish 
proper.  Occasions  for  expenditures  of  a  distinctly  local 
character  were  exceptional  and  were  met  almost  entirely  by 
private  subscriptions.  The  disposition  of  forfeited  sites  fur- 
nished a  thin  and  inadequate  revenue  for  maintenance  and 
repair. 

As  Baltimore  grew  in  area  and  population  in  the  period 
from  1745  to  1780,  the  administrative  oversight  exercised 
in  theory  by  the  county  court  tended  inevitably  to  the  neg- 
lect of  local  needs.  Local  expenditures  continued  to  be 
defrayed  largely  by  voluntary  contributions.  The  reve- 
nues accruing  from  the  sale  of  forfeited  sites,  from  fines  and 
penalties  for  the  violation  of  specifically  authorized  pow- 
ers, and  from  market  license  taxes,  were  available  for  the 
extension  and  maintenance  of  local  institutions  once  pro- 
vided. The  genesis  of  local  taxation  appeared  in  the  levy 
of  the  amount  of  the  clerk's  salary  upon  the  building  lots 
of  the  Town. 

The  period  from  1781  to  the  incorporation  of  Baltimore 
in  1796  was  characterized  by  great  complexity  in  the  dis- 
tribution of  local  functions  and  greater  variety  in  the  form 
of  local  charges.  Construction  and  maintenance  of  the 
roadway  of  the  Town  and  the  provision  of  a  public  water 
supply  were  vested  in  the  Special  Commissioners.  The  op- 
ening, widening  and  extension  of  particular  streets  were  en- 
trusted variously  to  the  Town  Commissioners  and  to  specifi- 
cally appointed  commissions.     Supervision  of  local  shipping 


46  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

was  put  in  the  hands  of  the  board  of  Port  Wardens.  The 
functions  of  watching  and  lighting  the  Town  were  exer- 
cised first  by  the  Town  Commissioners,  later  by  the  justices 
of  the  Baltimore  County  Court.  The  Town  Commission- 
ers exercised  in  theory  a  general  superintendence  of  the  ad- 
ministrative affairs  of  the  city,  limited  however  in  practice 
to  a  discretionary  assent  to  powers  otherwise  vested.  Each 
of  these  bodies  enjoyed  mutual  independence  in  its  financial 
operations. 

The  resident  property  owner  was  mulcted  for  the  violation 
of  local  regulations,  the  proceeds  ordinarily  accruing  to  the 
body  in  which  was  vested  the  exercise  of  the  particular 
function  involved.  His  property  was  assessed  for  the  spe- 
cial benefit  derived  from  the  paving  or  reconstruction  of  a 
particular  street,  the  sinking  of  a  well  or  the  erection  of  a 
pump  in  the  vicinity,  either  in  the  form  of  a  definite  charge 
per  front  foot,  or  a  proportionate  share  as  fixed  by  jury 
determination  of  the  gross  cost  involved.  He  paid  to  the 
Special  Commissioners  a  general  property  tax  {2s.  6d.  in 
iioo  from  1782  to  1790,  and  of  i.s.  3d,.,  from  1791  to  1796) 
to  defray  the  cost  of  street  repairs;  to  the  Town  Commis- 
sioners and  later  to  the  county  justices,  for  watching  and 
lighting  the  Town,  a  property  tax  {is.  6d.  in  iioo)  from 
1784  to  1796,  a  graduated  house  tax  from  1793  to  1795,  and 
an  additional  property  tax  thereafter.  His  property  when 
sold  at  public  auction  was  subject,  in  addition  to  specified 
auctioneer's  fees,  to  a  local  tax  varying  from  one-quarter 
to  one-half  per  cent,  of  the  gross  receipts.  The  price  he 
paid  for  goods  coming  by  water  to  Baltimore  was  aug- 
mented by  a  tonnage  duty  of  one  and  two  pence.  He  paid 
specific  taxes  on  his  carriages,  chairs,  wagons,  riding  horses 
and  billiard  tables,  and  if  the  proprietor  of  a  tavern,  a  play 
house  or  any  place  of  public  amusement,  he  was  charged 
with  a  considerable  license  tax.  Finally  he  might  find  con- 
solation in  the  blank  drawn  in  the  Town  lottery  in  the 
thought  that  to  some  extent  he  had  contributed  to  the  re- 
pair of  streets  and  to  the  improvement  of  the  harbor. 


THE    FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE   TOWN,    I729-I796       47 

It  is  thus  easy  to  see,  why  from  the  close  of  the  Revolu- 
tionary War,  agitation  for  the  formal  incorporation  of  Bal- 
timore Town  should  have  been  continuous  and  persistent. 
Inhabitants  of  the  Town  had  little  voice  in  its  administra- 
tion; authority  was  scattered  among  irresponsible  and  in- 
dependent commissions,  and  necessary  functions  were  neg- 
lected or  entirely  omitted.  Division  of  authority  produced 
wasteful  as  well  as  inefficient  administration.  The  property 
owner  was  subject  to  distinct  assessment,  the  cost  of  col- 
lection was  needlessly  repeated,  and  methods  of  account 
were  imperfect.  After  a  series  of  unsuccessful  attempts,^ 
Baltimore  City  was  incorporated  by  an  Act  of  the  General 
Assembly  on  the  last  day  of  December,  1796. 

^  For  a  brief  summary  of  some  of  these,  see  T.  P.  Thomas,  "  The 
City  Government  of  Baltimore,"  pp.  15-16,  in  Johns  Hopkins  Uni- 
versity Studies  in  Historical  and  Political  Science,  Fourteenth  Series, 
No.  I. 


PART  II 
THE  FINANCES  OF  BALTIMORE  CITY 

FROM    1797  TO    1816 

INTRODUCTION 

Between  the  close  of  the  Revolutionary  War  and  the  out- 
break of  the  War  of  181 2  occurred  a  noteworthy  expansion 
of  local  trade.  Continental  wars  not  only  increased  the 
demand  for  Maryland  staples,  but  largely  diverted  the 
West  India  trade  to  this  safer  port.  The  rise  and  perfec- 
tion of  the  "  Baltimore  Clipper  "  aided  the  opportunity,  and 
during  the  whole  period  under  consideration,  Baltimore  en- 
joyed a  large  part  of  European  and  West  Indian  commerce, 
together  with  no  inconsiderable  share  of  the  world's  carry- 
ing trade.  This  upward  movement  terminated  with  the 
outbreak  of  hostilities  and  the  stirring  events  of  the  War 
of  i8t2.  But  even  during  these  years,  daring  blockade 
running  and  indirect  shipments  enabled  Baltimore  mer- 
chants to  retain  possession  of  a  considerable  foreign  trade, 
and  the  resulting  depression  was  less  acute  than  might  have 
been  expected. 

The  administrative  history  of  the  city  during  the  same 
period  reveals  the  gradual  evolution  of  municipal  organiza- 
tion. The  act  of  incorporation  established  the  general  out- 
line of  municipal  government,  but  left  the  details  of  admin- 
istration to  local  choice.  This  determination  proceeded 
tentatively  and  conservatively.  At  first  the  essential  fea- 
E  (49) 


50  THE   FINANCIAL   HISTORY   OF   BALTIMORE 

tures  of  the  town  administration  were  incorporated  into  the 
municipal  framework  with  the  least  change  necessary.  As 
at  one  point  after  another  inadequacy  and  inefficiency  in 
administration  became  evident,  specific  changes  were  in- 
troduced, without  anything  like  a  general  reconstruction  at 
any  time  occurring. 

The  influence  of  these  two  forces — rapid  material  growth 
and  slow  administrative  development — is  reflected  in  the 
financial  history  of  the  city  from  1797  to  1816.  The  first 
fact  rendered  necessary  an  extension  of  local  functions  and 
the  more  regular  performance  of  those  already  assumed. 
The  second  occasioned  constant,  illogical  change  in  admin- 
istrative and  fiscal  machinery. 


CHAPTER  I 

MTJUICIPAIi  ADMINISTRATION. 

Corporate  Powers. 

By  the  act  of  1796^  Baltimore  Town  was  erected  into  a 
city,  and  its  inhabitants  constituted  a  body  politic  and  cor- 
porate by  the  name  of  the  "  Mayor  and  City  Council  of 
Baltimore."  The  authority  before  invested  in  the  Town 
Commissioners,  Special  Commissioners  and  Port  Wardens 
was  transferred  to  the  new  corporation.  Additional  powers, 
corresponding  in  the  main  to  those  ordinarily  possessed  by 
a  municipal  corporation,  were  conferred  by  specific  enu- 
meration. In  the  following  year  the  act  of  incorporation 
was  made  perpetual  law,  and  certain  supplementary  powers 
were  added.* 

The  powers  conferred  by  the  charter  included  authority 
to  remove  public  nuisances,  to  provide  for  the  safety  and 
health  of  the  city,  to  establish  and  reconstruct  streets  (with 
the  consent  of  the  owners  of  the  ground),  to  improve  the 
harbor,  to  erect  bridges,  to  construct  sewers,  to  regulate 
markets,  to  prevent  and  extinguish  fires,  to  impose  and 
appropriate  fines,  penalties  and  forfeitures,  and  to  impose 
taxes  not  exceeding  two  dollars  in  the  hundred  pounds  in 
any  one  year,  and  to  enforce  their  collection,  if  necessary, 
by  distress  and  sale.* 

The  supplementary  statute  of  1797  added  authority  to 
pave  and  repair  streets,  to  license  and  regulate  vehicles  for 
hire,  to  make  new  assessment  of  real  and  personal  property 

^ "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1796,  ch.  68.  *  Ibid.,  1797,  ch.  54. 

*  A  certain  district  of  the  city,  Deptford  Hundred,  was  exempted 
from  any  tax,  direct  or  indirect,  for  the  improvement  of  the  docks 
and  harbor. 

(51) 


52  THE   FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF    BALTIMORE 

as  often  as  might  be  necessary,  and  to  tax  particular  dis- 
tricts of  the  city  for  street  paving,  sinking  wells  or  erecting 
lamps  "  which  may  appear  for  the  benefit  of  such  particular 
part  or  district." 

Administrative  Organization. 

The  government  of  the  city  was  vested  in  a  Mayor  and  a 
bicameral  City  Council.  The  lower  house  or  First  Branch 
was  composed  of  two  members  elected  annually  by  popular 
vote  from  each  of  the  eight  wards  into  which  the  city  was 
divided.  The  upper  house  or  Second  Branch  was  com- 
posed of  one  member  from  each  ward,  elected  by  a  minia- 
ture electoral  college  made  up  of  one  elector  from  each  ward 
chosen  by  popular  vote  at  the  time  of  electing  the  members 
of  the  First  Branch.  The  Mayor  was  elected  at  the  same 
time  and  in  the  same  manner  as  the  members  of  the  Second 
Branch  of  the  Council.  The  Council  was  empowered  to 
pass  all  ordinances  necessary  for  the  exercise  of  the  power 
conferred  upon  the  corporation,  subject  to  a  veto  privilege 
on  the  part  of  the  Mayor.  In  1808  the  high  property  quali- 
fications of  the  Mayor  and  Councilmen  were  considerably 
reduced,  and  the  method  of  choosing  the  Second  Branch  of 
the  Council  was  changed  to  election  by  popular  vote.  The 
Mayor  continued  to  be  chosen  indirectly,  but  the  number 
"of  electors  was  increased  from  eight  to  sixteen.^ 

The  Charter  left  the  details  of  administrative  machinery, 
as  has  been  intimated,  to  local  determination.  Provision 
was,  however,  made  that  two  candidates  must  be  nominated 
for  each  municipal  office  by  the  Second  Branch  of  the 
Council,  one  of  whom  should  be  appointed  by  the  Mayor. 
After  1808  nominations  were  made  jointly  by  the  two 
Branches  of  the  Council.  The  successive  changes  in  the 
organization  of  municipal  departments  can  be  best  noticed 
in  connection  with  the  particular  functions  with  the  exercise 
of  which  they  were  vested. 

'*"  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1807,  ch.  152. 


THE    FINANCES    OF    BALTIMORE    CITY,    I797-1816         53 

Financial  Machinery, 

■The  second  ordinance  passed  by  the  newly  organized 
City  Council  designated  two  persons  to  receive  the  records 
and  the  funds  in  the  possession  of  the  several  town  au- 
thorities/ This  was  speedily  followed  by  the  creation  of 
the  offices  of  Register  and  Treasurer.^  The  Register  was 
directed  to  preserve  all  municipal  records  and  accounts;  to 
cause  all  ordinances  to  be  published,  and  to  affix  the  city 
seal  when  required.  The  Treasurer  was  authorized  to  re- 
ceive, deposit  and  draw,  when  directed  by  ordinance,  the 
funds  of  the  corporation,  and  to  render  account  annually, 
or  oftener  if  required,  to  the  Mayor  and  to  each  Branch  of 
the  Council.  A  year  later  the  office  of  Treasurer  was 
abolished  and  the  various  duties  and  powers  theretofore 
exercised  by  this  officer  were  vested  in  the  Register." 

Immediately  after  the  organization  of  the  Council,  the 
appointment  of  a  Collector  was  authorized,  to  enforce  the 
payment  of  all  municipal  taxes  and  dues,  and  also  to  collect 
the  proceeds  of  chimney  fines.  Subsequent  local  levies 
provided  in  each  case  for  the  appointment  of  a  similar 
functionary,  who  was  required  to  make  returns  within  a 
specified  period.  Gradually  the  office  came  to  be  regarded 
as  fixed,  and  its  incumbent  was  vested  with  the  collection 
of  all  local  charges,  save  those  specifically  provided  for. 

The  Budget. 

Little  evidence  is  available  as  to  the  extent  and  nature  of 
budgetary  procedure  during  this  early  period  of  municipal 
history.  The  problem  was  essentially  simple.  Local 
sources  of  revenue  were  utilized  throughout  to  the  maxi- 
mum degree  authorized,  and  the  task  was  simply  an  adjust- 
ment of  expenditure  to  relatively  fixed  and  inelastic  revenue. 
It  is  probable  that  the  City  Council  simply  followed  the 

*  Ordinance  of  March  17,  1797. 
'  Ordinance  of  March  27,  1797. 
'  Ordinance  of  March  10,  1798. 


54  THE   FINANCIAL   HISTORY   OF   BALTIMORE 

practice  of  the  state  legislature,  and  that  a  general  appro- 
priation bill  was  prepared  and  reported  by  a  joint  Ways  and 
Means  Committee  of  the  two  Branches.  This  was  the 
procedure  a  few  years  later,  and  it  seems  likely  that  the 
practice  was  at  this  time  already  in  vogue.  A  detailed 
balance  sheet  of  receipts  and  expenditures  was  published 
annually  by  the  Register.^ 

*  See  Appendix  D. 


CHAPTER  II 


MUNICIPAIi  EXPENDITURE. 


The  disbursements  of  Baltimore  City  during  the  first 
twenty  years  of  its  corporate  Hfe  differed  in  degree  rather 
than  in  kind  from  those  of  the  Town  administration.  Roads 
and  highways,  watching  and  lighting,  administration, 
wharves  and  harbor,  continued  the  primary  objects  of  local 
expenditure,  in  much  the  order  named.  The  development 
of  local  activity  largely  in  these  directions,  made  possible 
by  formal  incorporation,  was  reflected  in  a  marked  in- 
crease in  aggregate  disbursements  until  1801.  The  suc- 
ceeding decade  revealed  fairly  uniform  expenditures,  fol- 
lowed in  turn  by  a  sharp  increase  after  the  War  of  1812. 

Streets  and  Roadways. 

Street  Paving  and  Repair,  By  the  charter  of  Baltimore 
City  no  authority  was  provided  for  the  paving  or  repair  of 
streets  other  than  that  implied  in  the  transfer  to  the  cor- 
poration of  the  several  powers  possessed  by  the  authorities 
of  Baltimore  Town.  The  supplementary  measure  of  the 
following  year,  howeverj  specifically  empowered  the  city  to 
pass  "  all  ordinances  necessary  for  paving  and  keeping  in 
repair  the  streets,  lanes  and  alleys  "  and  "  to  tax  any  par- 
ticular part  or  district  of  the  city  for  paving  the  streets, 
lanes  or  alleys  therein."  An  ordinance  passed  at  the  first 
session  of  the  City  Council  made  provision  for  the  continu- 
ous exercise  of  this  power.  A  board  of  five  City  Commis- 
sioners was  appointed  and  vested  with  "  all  the  power  over 
the  said  streets,  lanes  and  alleys,  lines  and  boundaries  of 
lots,  within  the  said  city  heretofore  granted  to  the  commis- 
sioners of   Baltimore  town."  ^    The  actual  duties   of  the 

^  Ordinance  of  April  lo,  1797. 
(55) 


56  THE   FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

Commissioners  were  the  selection  of  the  particular  streets 
to  be  paved  or  repaired,  and  the  contracting  with  proper 
persons  for  the  performance  of  the  work.  The  Commis- 
sioners were  directed  to  give  in  the  selection  of  streets  "  a 
preference  to  such  as  shall  in  their  judgment  be  of  most 
importance."  This  broad  discretion  was,  however,  limited 
by  the  provision  that  only  such  streets  should  be  paved  as 
"  a  majority  of  the  proprietors  and  tenants  inhabiting 
therein  may  require." 

In  1806  the  number  of  City  Commissioners  was  reduced 
to  three,  of  whom  one  must  reside  on  the  east  side  and  two 
on  the  west  side  of  Jones'  Falls.  The  duties  and  powers  of 
the  board  remained  unchanged.  This  ordinance  was  to 
remain  in  force  for  a  single  year.^  Upon  expiration  it  was, 
however,  re-enacted  with  a  further  statement  of  the  powers 
of  the  City  Commissioners  in  much  the  terms  of  the  ordi- 
nance of  1797.*  Two  years  later  in  the  effort  to  introduce 
greater  simplicity  and  economy  into  city  administration, 
the  distinct  boards  of  City  Commissioners  and  of  Health 
Commissioners  were  abolished  and  a  new  joint  board  of 
four  persons,  styled  "  City  Commissioners  and  Commis- 
sioners of  Health,"  was  created.  The  early  principle  of 
territorial  representation  was  continued  in  the  provision 
that  two  of  the  Commissioners  must  reside  on  the  east  side 
and  two  on  the  west  side  of  Jones'  Falls.'  This  was  aban- 
doned  in  1814,  when  the  number  of  Commissioners  was 
reduced  to  three,  independent  of  residence.* 

The  cost  of  paving  public  thoroughfares  was  defrayed, 
in  large  part,  by  a  special  assessment  upon  the  property 
benefited,  as  noted  below."  The  proceeds  of  the  assessment 
were  ordinarily  anticipated  by  draft  upon  the  city  treasury 
to  which  any  surplus  reverted.    Deficits  were  met  by  special 

^  Ordinance  of  March  14,  1806.    "  Ordinance  of  March  19,  1807. 
'  Ordinance  of  March  22,  1809.  *  Ordinance  of  March  25,  1814. 
"See  below,  page  80.     For  minor  changes  in  the  powers  of  the 
City   Commissioners,  cf.   Ordinances  of  March  7,   1801;  March  3, 
'    1804;  March  9,  1807. 


THE   FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE   CITY,    I797-1816         5/ 

appropriations/  Specific  appropriations  were  sometimes 
also  made  in  aid  of  special  assessments  levied  upon  a  thinly- 
settled  street;'  or  in  the  event  of  a  depleted  treasury,  the 
Commissioners  were  occasionally  authorized  to  borrow  a 
specified  amount  upon  the  credit  of  the  city,  to  be  repaid 
within  a  definite  period.'  Less  usual  was  the  procedure  in 
certain  cases  where  the  City  Commissioners  were  directed 
to  pave  portions  of  certain  streets,  provided  that  the  owners 
of  abutting  property  satisfactorily  paved  the  remainder.* 

Side-walks  were  laid  or  repaired  by  the  owners  of  abut- 
ting property.  Tenants  of  not  more  than  five  years'  pos- 
session were  required  to  perform  the  work,  with  the  privi- 
lege of  making  a  corresponding  deduction  from  rental  pay- 
ment. In  the  case  of  refusal  or  neglect  upon  the  part  of 
owners  or  occupiers,  the  City  Commissioners  made  the 
improvement  and  levied  the  charge,  together  with  a  fine  of 
one-eighth  of  a  dollar  per  front  foot  upon  the  delinquent. 

Sewers.  Under  the  terms  of  the  Charter,  the  corporation 
was  empowered  "  to  pave  and  keep  in  repair  all  necessary 
drains  and  sewers,  and  to  pass  all  regulations  necessary  for 
the  preservation  of  the  same."  This  authority  was  vested 
in  broad  terms  in  the  board  of  City  Commissioners,  ap- 
pointed by  the  ordinance  of  April  lo,  1797,  as  noted  above. 
The  City  Commissioners  were  empowered  to  enter  upon 
private  property  "  through  which  the  common  sewers  now 
or  may  hereafter  run,  or  ought  to  run,  to  regulate,  make  or 
repair  the  same."  The  damages  sustained  by  private  prop- 
erty, if  any,  were  to  be  assessed  by  two  arbitrators  (one  of 
whom  was  chosen  by  the  City  Commissioners,  the  other  by 
the  owners  concerned)  with  power  to  summon  an  umpire, 
whose  award  was  final.  The  damages  so  ascertained  were 
paid  to  the  owners  affected  from  out  the  city  treasury.  No 
essential  change  was  made  in  this  procedure  in  the  ordi- 

*  Ordinance  of  April  29,  1797. 

'  Ordinances  of  June  18,  1797;  February  20,  1799;  March  15,  1800. 

*  Ordinances  of  February  26  and  27,  1799;  April  7,  1800. 

*  Ordinances  of  August  2,  1809;  March  10,  1810. 


58  THE   FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF    BALTIMORE 

nance  of  March  9,  1807,  revising  the  functions  of  the  City 
Commissioners. 

The  construction  and  repair  of  sewers,  however,  formed 
but  a  small  item  of  municipal  expenditure.  Within  the 
period  here  considered,  and  indeed  throughout  the  whole 
history  of  the  city,  dependence  was  had  upon  surface  drain- 
age, and  anything  approximating  a  system  of  municipal 
sewerage  was  unknown.  Occasional  appropriations  were 
made  for  the  construction  of  mere  storm-water  drains ;  ^  at 
other  times  recourse  was  had  for  nominal  expenses  of  repair 
to  the  annual  appropriations  of  the  City  Commissioners. 
In  some  cases  the  work  was  entrusted  to  specifically  ap- 
pointed commissioners.  Of  this  character  was  an  enabling 
act  of  the  General  Assembly  in  181 5,  authorizing  the  con- 
struction of  sewers  in  the  western  precincts  of  Baltimore.^ 
Five  persons  were  therein  appointed  commissioners  to  con- 
struct such  sewers  within  the  territory  described  "  as  in 
their  opinion  will  conduce  to  the  healthiness  or  beneficial 
improvement  of  the  grounds  lying  adjacent  thereto."  The 
cost  incurred  was  to  be  defrayed  by  a  special  assessment 
upon  the  proprietors  of  the  lots  benefited. 

Bridges,  With  a  site  repeatedly  cut  by  a  water-course, 
the  construction  and  repair  of  bridges  in  Baltimore  City 
soon  became  necessary.  As  indicated  above,  this  indeed 
formed  one  of  the  earliest  and  most  urgent  objects  of  public 
expenditure  in  the  period  before  1797.'  Local  resources 
were  inadequate,  and  in  1796  the  General  Assembly  incor- 
porated a  private  company  to  construct  a  "  Lower  Bridge  " 
across  Jones'  Falls,  and  appointed  two  boards  of  Commis- 
sioners to  repair  the  "  Upper  Bridge  "  and  the  "  Middle 
Bridge,"  respectively,  and  to  levy  for  this  purpose  specified 
amounts  upon  the  assessable  property  of  Baltimore  County.* 

After  the  incorporation  of  Baltimore,  and  the  grant  of 
power  "  to  erect  and  repair  bridges,"  the  burden  appears 

^  Ordinance  of  February  27,  1799. 

* "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1815,  ch.  82;  cf.  below,  p.  60,  note  i. 

'Ibid.,  1796,  ch.  56.  *  Ibid.,  1796,  ch.  55. 


THE   FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE   CITY,    I797-1816         59 

to  have  been  assumed  in  large  part  by  the  municipaUty. 
During  1797  and  1798  the  commissioners  appointed  by  the 
Legislature  in  1796  to  repair  the  bridges  across  Jones' 
Falls  were  authorized  by  the  City  Council  to  borrow  from 
local  banks  upon  the  credit  of  the  city  considerable  amounts 
to  be  repaid  within  the  two  following  years/  These  larger 
works  once  completed,  but  small  appropriations  were  made 
for  construction  or  repair  during  the  next  decade. 

In  1808  began  a  movement  for  the  construction  of  more 
substantial  and  expensive  bridges.  These  were  built  under 
the  superintendence  of  the  Mayor  and  City  Commissioners, 
who  were  required  to  secure  the  consent  of  all  property 
owners  exposed  to  damage.  It  is  likely  that  the  several 
amounts  appropriated  were  obtained  wholly  or  in  part  by 
loans  from  the  banks  of  the  city  and  repaid  out  of  accruing 
city  revenues." 

Street  Reconstruction. 

By  the  original  act  incorporating  Baltimore  City,  the 
Mayor  and  City  Council  were  authorized  to  establish  new 
and  to  alter  old  streets,  with  the  consent  of  the  owners  of 
property  affected.  This  last  condition  virtually  limited  the 
power  to  the  extension  into  unbuilt  territory  of  streets 
already  established.  The  work  was  probably  performed 
under  the  direction  of  the  City  Commissioners,  and  involved 
little,  if  any,  unusual  expenditure. 

Where  the  consent  of  all  property  owners  affected  could 
not  be  obtained,  specific  legislative  authority  was  sought 
for  the  exercise  of  the  power  of  eminent  domain.  This 
authority  was  accorded  in  a  series  of  special  acts  of  the 
General  Assembly  of  Maryland  directing  the  extension  or 
alteration  of  the  particular  streets  in  question."  The  ordi- 
nary procedure  therein  authorized  was  for  the  City  Com- 

^  Ordinances  of  April  24,  1797,  and  March  19,  1798. 

*  Griffiths,  "  Annals  of  Baltimore,"  pp.  196-197. 

""Laws  of  Maryland,"  1797,  ch.  64;  1798,  ch.  19;  1799,  ch.  31; 
1800,  ch.  56;  1801,  ch.  81;  1803,  ch.  68;  1810,  ch.  153;  1811,  ch.  24,  133; 
1812,  ch.  34,  40,  118,  171;  1813,  ch.  97. 


6o  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

missioners  to  lay  out  or  widen  the  particular  street,  to  de- 
clare it  a  public  highway  and  to  return  a  plat  thereof  to  the 
Register  of  the  city.  If  the  street  extended  into  the  "  pre- 
cincts "  of  the  city/  or  into  Baltimore  County,  or  occasion- 
ally in  the  case  of  a  street  within  the  city,  the  duties  of  the 
City  Commissioners  were  performed  by  the  "  commissioners 
of  the  precincts  "  or  by  a  specially  appointed  commission.* 
Ordinarily  the  entire  expenditure  involved  in  widening 
or  extending  the  street  and  in  the  award  of  benefits  was 
defrayed  by  a  special  assessment  upon  the  property  bene- 
fited in  the  manner  hereinafter  described.'  In  some  cases 
where  the  amount  was  unusually  large  the  city  was  author- 
ized to  make  an  appropriation  in  aid.* 

Street  Cleaning. 

The  newly  appointed  City  Commissioners  were  charged 
in  an  early  ordinance  with  the  cleaning  of  streets — a  func- 
tion consisting  in  the  mere  removal,  bi-weekly,  of  dirt  and 
refuse  accumulated  or  deposited  by  householders  in  front 
of  their  respective  lots."  A  year  later,  the  office  of  "  Super- 
intendent of  Streets  "  was  created,  and  the  authority  of  the 
City  Commissioners  in  this  regard  was  transferred  thereto. 
The  Superintendent  received  a  fixed  salary  and  one-half  of 
all  fines  collected  upon  his  information;  and  was  required 
to  render  weekly  account  of  all  funds  received  from  fines 
and  from  sales  of  refuse." 

In  1 80 1  two  Superintendents  of  Streets  were  appointed, 
one  for  the  district  east,  and  one  for  that  west  of  Jones' 
Falls.     The  incumbents  were  directed  to  execute  all  orders 

*  The  "  Precincts  of  the  City  "  comprised  certain  parts  of  Balti- 
more County  immediately  without  the  corporate  limits  of  Balti- 
more City.  In  1817  these  districts  were  defined  and  made  part  of 
the  city  ("  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1816,  ch.  209,  218). 

^  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1807,  ch.  31;  1812,  ch.  120,  121;  1813,  ch.  6t; 
1816,  ch.  143,  218;  1817,  ch.  71,  115,  117. 

*  See  below,  page  80. 

*  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1803,  ch.  82;  1817,  ch.  71,  115. 
"Ordinance  of  April  11,  1797. 

'  Ordinance  of  March  19,  1798. 


THE    FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE   CITY,    I797-1816         61 

received  from  the  Mayor  and  from  the  Commissioners  of 
Health,  and  to  render  monthly  instead  of  weekly  account/ 
These  powers  were  renewed  in  1807,^  and  immediately 
thereafter  the  Superintendents  of  Streets  were  charged  with 
the  provision  and  care  of  the  city's  pumps  and  wells,  under 
the  new  title  "  Superintendents  of  Streets  and  Pumps."  * 
Their  primary  duties  with  respect  to  street-cleaning  re- 
mained unchanged. 

Watching  and  Lighting. 

The  charter  of  Baltimore  vested  the  corporation  with 
general  authority  "  to  establish  night  watches  or  patrols, 
and  to  erect  lamps,"  and  made  the  statute  of  1784  perpetual, 
as  already  noted.*  At  the  first  session  of  the  City  Council, 
an  ordinance  was  passed  authorizing  the  appointment  of 
three  "  Commissioners  of  the  Watch  and  for  Lighting  the 
City."  This  board  was  empowered  to  employ  watchmen 
and  to  contract  for  the  erection  and  care  of  lamps."*  Subse- 
quent ordinances  provided  for  the  joint  exercise  of  these 
powers  by  the  Commissioners  of  the  Watch  and  the  Mayor,' 
This  practice  led  to  the  gradual  disuse  of  the  Commission- 
ers of  the  Watch.  The  ofiEices  seem  never  to  have  been 
formally  abolished;  but  after  1804  no  appropriations  for  sal- 
aries appear  to  have  been  made,  and  the  duties  of  the  board 
were  doubtless  assumed  by  the  Mayor.  In  1807,  the  City 
Commissioners  were  formally  substituted  for  the  Commis- 
sioners of  the  Watch  to  appoint  and  superintend  the  night 
watch,  in  conjunction  with  the  Mayor.^ 

^  Ordinance  of  March  10,  1801.       ^  Ordinance  of  March  26,  1807. 

*  Ordinance  of  April  2,  1807;  cf.  p.  64,  below. 

*  See  above,  page  44. 

''  Ordinance  of  April  3,  1797. 

'  Ordinances  of  November  28,  1797;  March  2,  1799;  March  15, 
1800. 

^  Ordinance  of  March  9,  1807,  sect.  20.  During  the  entire  period 
here  under  survey,  periodic  report  of  the  proceedings  of  the  night 
watch  continued  to  be  made  to  designated  "  Justices  of  the  Peace  " 
(cf.  p.  44,  above). 


62  THE    FINANCIAL    HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

In  1816,  the  foundation  of  a  general  police  system  for 
Baltimore  was  laid  by  the  passage  of  an  ordinance  provid- 
ing for  the  appointment  by  the  Mayor  of  a  corps  of  thirty- 
four  persons  for  the  purposes  of  watching  and  lighting  the 
city,  receiving  fixed  remuneration  and  classified  as  watch- 
men, captains,  and  lieutenants  of  the  watch/ 

The  police  duties  of  the  city  watch  consisted  almost  ex- 
clusively in  the  prevention  and  detection  of  crime.  For 
the  enforcement  of  city  ordinances  and  the  prevention  of 
their  neglect,  dependence  was  largely  put  upon  private  in- 
formation. As  early  as  1798,  however,  the  appointment 
was  authorized  of  a  City  Constable  to  ascertain  all  viola- 
tions of  municipal  ordinances.^  This  limited  provision  was 
soon  found  inadequate,  and  in  the  following  year  the  Mayor 
and  City  Council  were  directed  to  appoint  one  constable 
for  each  ward;  but  their  aggregate  compensation  was  fixed 
at  five  hundred  dollars."  In  1807,  the  Mayor  was  directed 
to  appoint  "  a  suitable  number  of  City  Constables,"  and  the 
same  amount  was  appropriated  annually.*  Two  such  offi- 
cials appeared  in  the  list  of  municipal  officers  of  18 12.  In 
January,  1813,  the  Mayor  was  empowered  to  appoint  at 
pleasure  not  less  than  twenty-five  nor  more  than  one  hun- 
dred bailiffs,  for  the  purpose  of  "  aiding  in  the  preservation 
of  the  peace,  the  maintenance  of  the  laws  and  the  advance- 
ment of  the  police  and  good  government "  of  the  city." 

Fire  Protection. 
The  earliest  suggestion  of  expenditure  for  fire  protection 
in  Baltimore  is  probably  the  proposal  in  1763  for  a  lottery 

^  Ordinance  of  April  4,  1816.  In  the  same  year  the  Mayor  was 
authorized  to  contract  with  the  newly  formed  "  Baltimore  Gas 
Light  Company "  for  one  year,  subject  to  renewal,  for  lighting 
the  city  with  gas  instead  of  oil-lamps,  provided  that  no  greater 
expenditure  were  entailed  by  the  change;  see  Ordinance  of  June  17, 
1816. 

'  Ordinance  of  March  19,  1798. 

'  Ordinance  of  February  26,  1799;  continued  by  Ordinance  of 
March  5,  1801. 

*  Ordinance  of  March  26,  1807. 

* "  Laws  of  Maryland,  1812  (November  sesssion),  ch.  194. 


THE   FINANCES   OF   BALTIMORE   CITY,    I797-1816         63 

to  raise  ^510,  some  part  of  which  should  be  used  for  "  Buy- 
ing Two  Fire  Engines  and  a  Parcel  of  Leather  Bucketts  for 
the  Use  of  the  said  Town."  ^  In  1769,  the  first  of  a  long 
series  of  volunteer  fire  companies  was  organized  and  a  fire 
engine  purchased  by  means  of  popular  subscription."  The 
statute  of  1787,  referred  to  above,'  "  for  the  more  effectual 
remedy  to  extinguish  fires,"  not  only  provided  a  means  of 
water  supply,  but  directed  every  householder  to  keep  two 
leather  buckets  hung  up  near  the  door  of  his  house. 

Volunteer  fire  companies  were  so  strongly  intrenched  in 
Baltimore  upon  the  incorporation  of  the  city  in  1796,  and 
their  activity  had  grown  so  familiar  that  no  provision  was 
inserted  in  the  charter  for  the  municipal  assumption  of  this 
function.  For  the  next  sixty-five  years,  the  relation  of  the 
city  to  fire  protection  was  free  supply  of  water,  extension 
of  financial  aid,  and  inadequate  regulation  of  volunteer 
companies.  The  first  direct  grant  was  made  in  1800.* 
Thereafter  annual  appropriations  in  general  aid  of  the  vol- 
unteer companies  of  the  city,  together  with  occasional  spe- 
cific grants  for  equipment,  formed  a  feature  of  the  municipal 
budget. 

Water  Supply. 

Among  the  enumerated  powers  of  the  new  corporation 
was  included  authority  "  to  erect  and  regulate  pumps  in  the 
streets,  lanes,  and  alleys  "  of  the  city.  At  the  first  session 
of  the  Council,  all  pumps  erected  and  to  be  erected  under 
the  provisions  of  the  statute  of  1787  were  declared  public, 
and  their  maintenance  assumed  by  the  city.  In  the  same 
ordinance  the  City  Commissioners  were  authorized  to  con- 
tract for  the  sinking  of  wells  and  the  erection  of  pumps 

"  Scharf,  "  Chronicles  of  Baltimore,"  p.  56. 
'  Ibid.,  p.  64. 

*  See  above,  page  25.  In  the  same  year  (1787),  the  four  volunteer 
fire  companies  then  in  existence  in  Baltimore  agreed  upon  con- 
certed action  in  case  of  fires. 

*  Ordinance  of  March  6,  1800;  see  also  Ordinances  of  March  8, 
1803,  and  March  2,  1804. 


64  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

wherever  such  seemed  necessary,  and  to  provide  for  their 
maintenance  and  repair  thereafter/ 

In  the  following  year  this  ordinance  was  repealed  and 
more  energetic  measures  were  taken,  by  providing  for  the 
annual  appointment  in  each  ward  of  the  city  of  a  "  Super- 
intendent of  Public  Wells  and  Pumps,"  vested  with  the 
care  and  repair  of  old,  and  the  provision  of  new  pumps  and 
wells.  The  cost  of  erecting  new  pumps  was  defrayed  by  a 
special  assessment  or  "  pump-tax " '  upon  the  property 
benefited,  levied  by  the  Superintendent  of  the  particular 
ward,  acting  together  with  the  Superintendent  of  any  ad- 
joining ward.  All  Superintendents  were  required  to  render 
quarterly  account  to  the  Mayor," 

Five  years  later  an  ordinance  was  passed  with  the  explicit 
preamble  that  the  measure  of  1798  "  has  been  found  insuffi- 
cient and  it  is  believed  that  if  the  superintendence  of  the 
pumps  was  concentrated  in  fewer  hands  that  the  complaints 
would  be  reduced."  Instead  of  eight,  two  Superintendents 
were  therein  appointed — one  for  the  district  west,  and  one 
for  that  east  of  Jones'  Falls.  No  change  was  made  in  the 
duties  attached  to  the  office,  but  penalties  were  added  for 
the  neglect  of  their  performance.*  In  1807  the  duties  of  the 
"  Superintendents  of  Wells  and  Pumps  "  were  assumed  by 
the  Superintendents  of  Streets." 

But  long  before  1817  public  pumps  and  wells  had  been 
found  inadequate  as  the  sole  source  of  the  growing  city's 
water  supply.  In  1799  certain  persons  were  authorized 
to  raise  by  lottery  a  sum  of  money  to  be  applied  to- 
wards defraying  the  expenses  of  conveying  and  distributing 
"  pure  and  wholesome  water." "  A  second  ordinance  di  the 
same  day  provided  for  carrying  this  project  into  execution, 
by  authorizing  the  Mayor,  with  the  advice  and  consent  of 

^  Ordinance  of  April  24,  1797.  For  these  several  purposes  the 
sum  of  one  thousand  dollars  was  appropriated! 

*  See  below,  page  82.  '  Ordinance  of  March  10,  1798. 

*  Ordinance  of  March  25,  1803.  "  See  above,  page  61. 
'  Ordinance  of  February  26,  1799. 


THE   FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE   CITY,    I797-1816         65 

a  board  of  seven  specially  appointed  commissioners,  to  con- 
tract for  the  conveyance  into  and  distribution  within  the 
city  of  an  adequate  supply  of  water  from  one  of  the  numer- 
ous adjacent  sources.  Any  such  contract  to  be  valid  must 
receive  the  approval  of  the  Mayor  and  Council.  The  ex- 
penses involved  were  to  be  defrayed  by  a  loan,  made  by  the 
Mayor  and  the  appointed  commissioners,  for  the  repayment 
of  which  all  profits  accruing  from  the  supply  of  water,  and 
the  proceeds  of  all  lotteries  were  pledged.^  Beyond  some 
preliminary  work  of  examination,  no  practical  result  fol- 
lowed this  measure,  and  in  1803,  twelve  new  commissioners 
were  appointed  for  the  purpose  of  "  introducing  a  copious 
and  permanent  supply  of  wholesome  water  into  the  City  of 
Baltimore."  They  were  authorized,  in  conjunction  with 
the  Mayor,  to  make  detailed  examination  of  the  sources  of 
supply  and  of  the  means  of  conducting  it  into  the  city,  to 
invite  proposals,  and  to  make  a  contract  subject  to  the  ap- 
proval of  the  Mayor  and  Council.  A  special  session  was 
authorized  to  consider  the  commission's  report  and  to 
provide  funds  for  defraying  the  expenses  involved.* 

This  effort  was  likewise  unsuccessful,  and  it  was  left  for 
private  enterprise  to  accomplish  that  at  which  public  ac- 
tivity had  stalled.  Early  in  1804,  permission  was  granted 
certain  owners  of  property  along  the  water  front  to  intro- 
duce, at  their  own  expense  with  the  aid  of  voluntary  sub- 
scriptions, a  supply  of  water  into  the  city,  and  to  erect  a 
public  reservoir  for  which  the  city  appropriated  the  site.' 
A  month  later,  the  persons  interested  formed  themselves 
into  "  The  Baltimore  Water  Company "  and  received  an 
act  of  incorporation  in  the  following  year.*  In  1806  the 
powers  conferred  by  the  act  of  1804  were  virtually  transfer- 
red to  the  Baltimore  Water  Company,  which  was  thus  given 
the  free  use  of  streets  and  public  protection  of  property.' 

*  Ordinance  of  February  26.  1799. 

*  Ordinance  of  March  24,  1803.       ^  Ordinance  of  March  8,  1804. 

*  Griffiths,  "Annals  of  Baltimore,"  p.  171;  Scharf,  "Chronicles  of 
Baltimore,"  pp.  296,  303. 

*  Ordinance  of  February  14,  1806. 

F 


66  THE   FINANCIAL  HISTORY   OF   BALTIMORE 

The  first  step  towards  municipal  control  of  the  water 
supply  was  taken  in  1809,  when  the  City  Commissioners 
were  authorized,  in  conjunction  with  the  Mayor,  to  con- 
tract with  the  Water  Company  for  the  transfer  of  all  fire 
plugs  erected  by  the  Company,  and  further  to  erect  as 
many  more  as  might  be  necessary.  An  appropriation  was 
made  for  this  purpose,  and  the  care  of  the  fire  plugs  was 
vested  in  the  City  Commissioners." 

Health. 

In  addition  to  authorizing  a  special  tax  on  the  assessable 
property  of  the  city  to  extinguish  the  debt  incurred  by  the 
Committee  of  Health  of  Baltimore  Town,  the  charter  of 
Baltimore  City  vested  the  corporation  with  power  to  pass 
all  laws  and  ordinances  "  necessary  to  preserve  the  health 
of  the  city;  prevent  and  remove  nuisances;  to  prevent  the 
introduction  of  contagious  diseases  within  the  city  and 
within  three  miles  of  the  same."  At  the  first  session  of  the 
Council,  an  ordinance  was  passed  authorizing  the  appoint- 
ment of  a  new  board  of  Commissioners  of  Health  and  vest- 
ing it,  in  conjunction  with  "  the  health  officer  for  the  time 
being,"  with  the  detailed  execution  and  enforcement  of 
these  general  powers.  The  appointment  of  a  clerk  was  au- 
thorized, and  all  necessary  expenses  were  assumed  by  the 
city;  but  the  Commissioners  themselves  seem  to  have  been 
unsalaried.' 

In  1801,  this  body  was  succeeded  by  five  Commissioners 
of  Health,  each  of  whom  assumed  sanitary  control  of  an 
assigned  district  of  the  city.  The  powers  of  the  board  were 
enlarged,  and  the  Superintendents  of  Streets  and  the  City 
Constables  were  directed  to  execute  the  orders  of  any  Com- 

^  Ordinance  of  March  11,  1809.  The  regulative  power  of  the 
municipality  was  exercised  in  the  following  year  by  an  ordinance 
imposing  fines  upon  the  Water  Company  for  neglect  to  restore 
torn-up  streets  to  their  original  condition,  or  to  replace  defective 
street  paving  (Ordinance  of  Februarj'  10,  1810). 

'  Ordinance  of  April  7,  1797. 


THE   FINANCES   OF   BALTIMORE   CITY,    I797-1816         6/ 

missioner.  The  Commissioners  were  to  receive  fixed  sal- 
aries, to  draw  on  the  Register  for  necessary  expenditures, 
and  to  account  quarterly  with  the  Mayor  and  annually  with 
the  Council/  Two  years  later,  a  further  reorganization 
took  place.  Four  Commissioners  of  Health  were  then  ap- 
pointed, two  of  whom  were  chosen  from  the  east  side  and 
two  from  the  west  side  of  Jones'  Falls;  their  authority  was 
extended  to  the  sanitary  care  of  docks/ 

In  1807,  recourse  was  again  had  to  the  district  plan.  The 
city  was  divided  into  four  districts,  sanitary  control  over 
each  of  which  was  assumed  by  a  corresponding  Commis- 
sioner. The  appointment  of  a  Health  Officer  and  an  assist- 
ant was  also  authorized,  to  carry  into  execution  prescribed 
quarantine  regulations.'  Finally  in  1809,  the  board  of  Com- 
missioners of  Health  was  merged  with  the  board  of  City 
Commissioners  in  a  new  joint  board,  styled  "  City  Commis- 
sioners and  Commissioners  of  Health,"  as  has  been  already 
described.*  No  further  change  in  organization  was  made 
until  the  creation  of  a  municipal  Board  of  Health  in  1820." 

Markets. 

Prior  to  1797,  three  markets  had  been  successively  es- 
tablished in  Baltimore  upon  authority  derived  from  the 
Legislature.  The  charter  of  the  city  vested  general  power 
in  the  corporation  "  to  erect  and  regulate  markets."  An 
early  ordinance  of  the  City  Council  prescribed  detailed  rules 
for  the  conduct  of  such  markets,  and  authorized  the  ap- 
pointment of  a  clerk  for  each,  who  should  enforce  all  market 
ordinances,  collect  stall  rentals,  and  pay  over  the  proceeds, 
together  with  all  fines  and  forfeitures,  to  the  City  Treas- 
urer.' A  few  years  later,  the  erection  of  an  additional 
market  house  was  authorized,  and  special  commissioners 
were  appointed  to  borrow  money  for  this  purpose  and  to 

*  Ordinance  of  March  20,  1801.        *  Ordinance  of  March  22,  1803. 

'  Ordinance  of  March  18,  1807.       *  See  above,  p.  56. 

"  See  below,  p.  121.  '  Ordinance  of  April  11,  1797. 


68  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

superintend  its  expenditure.  In  1804  the  debt  so  incurred 
was  discharged  and  a  supplementary  appropriation  made/ 
In  the  following  year,  a  general  ordinance  was  passed  for 
the  regulation  of  the  markets  of  the  city,  repealing  all  pre- 
vious measures,  and  virtually  constituting  the  general 
market  code  of  Baltimore,  throughout  the  period  here  con- 
sidered/ 

Wharves  and  Harbor. 

The  charter  of  Baltimore  vested  the  power  hitherto  exer- 
cised by  the  Port  Wardens  in  the  corporation.  Provision 
was  immediately  made  for  the  detailed  exercise  of  this  au- 
thority by  the  appointment  of  a  Harbor  Master,  empow- 
ered to  select  his  own  deputies  subject  to  the  approval  of 
the  Mayor.' 

Further  facilities  for  local  commerce  were  afforded  by 
the  construction  of  public  wharves  in  1797,  in  1803,  and  in 
1806^  In  each  case  the  work  was  entrusted  to  two  or  to 
three  specially  appointed  commissioners,  who  were  author- 
ized to  draw  upon  the  City  Register  for  the  sum  appro- 
priated. Somewhat  exceptional  was  the  procedure  in  1797, 
whereby  the  appointed  commissioners  were  authorized  to 
borrow  the  sum  appropriated,  to  be  repaid  by  the  city 
within  two  years.  Occasional  appropriations  for  wharf  re- 
pair were  made  to  the  City  Commissioners." 

Specific  provision  was  made  for  the  expenditure  of  whar- 
fage receipts  by  the  passage  of  an  ordinance  in  1801,  with 
the  explanatory  preamble:  "it  is  but  just  and  reasonable 
that  the  same  (i.  e.  wharfage  receipts)  or  as  much  thereof 
as  may  be  necessary  should  be  appropriated  to  the  keeping 
the  said  wharves  in  repair,  and  in  improving  the  streets  and 
cleaning  the  docks  thereof."     The  ordinance  provided  that 

^  Ordinance  of  March  2,  1804. 

*  Ordinance  of  March  25,  1805,  supplemented  by  Ordinance  of 
March  13,  1816. 

"  Ordinance  of  April  24,  1797. 

*  Ordinances  of  March  19,  1797;  March  8,  1803;  March  14,  1806. 
Compare  also  those  of  February  26,  1799,  and  March  15,  1800. 


THE    FINANCES    OF    BALTIMORE    CITY,    I797-1816         69 

all  wharfage  charges  should  be  specifically  appropriated  to 
the  improvement  of  the  particular  wharf  or  dock  from  which 
they  had  been  collected,  and  the  Mayor  was  authorized  to 
appoint  one  or  more  commissioners  for  each  wharf  to  apply 
the  money  appropriated/  In  1809,  the  office  of  Harbor 
Master  was  duplicated  by  the  appointment  of  one  official 
for  the  east  and  one  for  the  west  side  of  Jones'  Falls, 
each  of  whom  was  vested  with  exclusive  jurisdiction  within 
his  respective  field/  Finally  in  1813  the  board  of  Port 
Wardens  was  revived  by  the  appointment  of  three  persons, 
vested  with  the  general  care  of  wharves  and  docks,  the  in- 
spection of  local  shipping  and  the  preservation  and  improve- 
ment of  the  channel  and  harbor.  The  Harbor  Masters 
were  made  subject  to  the  directions  of  this  board/ 

Poor  Relief. 

Before  1818,  there  existed  in  Baltimore  no  distinct  mu- 
nicipal agency  for  purposes  of  poor  relief.  As  early  as 
1773,  the  erection  of  an  alms-house  in  Baltimore  County 
had  been  authorized,  and  trustees  appointed  to  construct 
and  maintain  it.*  In  1805  the  conduct  of  the  institution  was 
transferred  to  the  Levy  Court  of  the  County,'  where  it  re- 
mained until  vested  by  a  statute  of  181 7  in  a  board  of  five 
trustees,  appointed  by  the  governor  of  the  state."  It  is 
probable  that  extreme  cases  of  dependents  and  defectives 
encountered  in  the  city  were  relieved  by  this  agency.  The 
expenses  of  the  alms-house  were  defrayed  by  county  taxa- 
tion. As  Baltimore  grew  in  area  and  population  the  desira- 
bility of  a  distinctly  local  agency  for  poor-relief  became 
more  obvious;  but  not  until  1818  was  this  afforded.^ 

Upon  certain  extraordinary  occasions  specially  appointed 
agencies   were   vested  with   the  administration   of  tempo- 

*  Ordinance  of  May  21,  1801.        ^  Ordinance  of  March  22,  1809. 

*  Ordinance  of  March  24,  1813. 

*  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1773,  ch.  30. 

^Ihid.,  1805,  ch.  94.  'Ihid.,  1817.  ch.  85. 

''Ibid.,  1818,  ch.  122;  see  below,  p.  130. 


70  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

rary  aid.  Thus  in  1800  the  subsequent  organization  of  a 
permanent  poor-reUef  board  was  anticipated  by  the  appoint- 
ment of  persons  in  each  ward  to  investigate  the  condition 
of  the  poor  resident  therein,  and  to  issue  recommendations 
to  the  Board  of  HeaUh  to  any  in  real  distress  for  reHef  at 
the  pubHc  expense/ 

Municipal  provision  for  the  pauper  sick  and  insane  was 
also  late  in  emergence.  The  first  general  hospital  in  Bal- 
timore appears  to  have  been  established  by  private  benevo- 
lence in  1794,  "  as  a  temporary  retreat  for  the  Strangers  and 
Sea-faring  people."^  During  the  ravages  of  yellow  fever 
in  1798,"  the  institution  was  purchased  by  the  local  Com- 
mittee of  Health  and  was  maintained  by  state  and  city  ap- 
propriation." In  1808  the  hospital  was  vested  in  private 
hands  for  a  term  of  fifteen  years.  The  city  paid  for  the 
public  patients  at  a  fixed  rate  and  exercised  general  con- 
trol over  the  institution  by  a  board  of  five  visitors.*  In 
1814  this  lease  was  extended  under  certain  conditions  for 
a  further  term  of  twenty-five  years." 

Municipal  Buildings. 

Expenditure  for  the  construction  and  maintenance  of 
municipal  buildings  formed  an  insignificant  item  in  the 
municipal  budget  prior  to  1897.  In  1801,  five  commission- 
ers were  authorized  in  conjunction  with  the  Mayor  to  erect 
a  city  hall.  Funds  therefor  were  provided  by  the  appro- 
priation of  one  half  of  the  proceeds  of  the  fifteen  shillings 
tax '  for  as  long  a  period  as  might  be  requisite.  In  antici- 
pation of  this  fund  the  commissioners  were  authorized  to 
borrow  money  at  six  per  cent.,  and  in  the  interim  to  secure 

^  Ordinance  of  November  18,  1800,  "  to  mitigate  the  distress 
occasioned  by  the  late  prevailing  fever." 

"  Griffiths,  "  Annals  of  Baltimore,"  p.  145. 

"  Ordinances  of  February  20,  1798,  and  February  20,  1799. 

*  Ordinance  of  June  25,  1808.  The  number  of  visitors  was  in- 
creased to  twelve  by  Ordinance  of  March  24,  1813. 

°  Ordinance  of  March  21,  1814. 

"  See  below,  page  75. 


THE   FINANCES   OF   BALTIMORE   CITY,    I797-1816         7I 

temporary  quarters  for  the  municipal  government."  No 
action  of  importance  appears  to  have  been  taken  under 
this  ordinance,  and  in  1806  it  was  specifically  repealed.' 

After  1807,  occasional  purchases  of  building  sites  and 
the  erection  of  temporary  structures  for  municipal  purposes 
increased  the  ordinary  annual  outlay  for  maintenance  and 
repair  to  an  appreciable  aggregate  in  certain  years. 

Administrative  Expenses. 

The  charter  of  1796,  as  has  been  intimated,  defined  the 
mere  framework  of  municipal  government,  and  left  the  cor- 
poration to  provide  by  ordinance  for  its  own  administrative 
machinery.  At  early  sessions  of  the  Council  provision  was 
made  for  the  appointment  of  a  Register,  Treasurer,  Collec- 
tor, Commissioners  of  the  Watch  and  for  Lighting  the 
City,  Commissioners  of  Health,  City  Commissioners,  Clerks 
of  Markets,  Harbor  Master,  Superintendents  of  Wells  and 
Pumps,  all  of  whose  functions  have  been  described  above. 
At  the  end  of  1798  the  officers  of  the  corporation  included 
the  Mayor,  Register,  Collector,  twenty  Councilmen  and 
Council  officers,  twenty-eight  commissioners  constituting 
five  boards,  twenty-two  inspection  officers,  and  ten  remain- 
ing functionaries  performing  more  or  less  distinctly  admin- 
istrative duties.  By  1812  the  administration  of  the  city  had 
become  appreciably  reduced  in  complexity.  The  offices  of 
Mayor,  Councilmen,  Register,  and  Collector  were  un- 
changed; those  of  Harbor  Master,  Superintendent  of  Streets 
and  City  Constable  had  been  duplicated;  the  number  of  in- 
spection officers  had  increased  to  twenty-four;  but  of  the 
various  boards  of  commissioners,  the  body  of  four  City 
Commissioners  was  the  only  survival. 

In  the  interval  between  1812  and  1816,  no  marked  re- 
ductions were  made  in  the  administrative  force  of  the  city; 
but  on  the  whole,  the  salary  list  of  the  corporation  was 

*  Ordinance  of  March  7,  1801. 
•    '  Ordinance  of  March  17,  1806. 


72  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF    BALTIMORE 

much  less  than  the  formidable  array  of  municipal  officers 
would  indicate.  The  entire  body  of  inspection  officers  were 
paid  by  fees;  the  Collector  was  compensated  by  a  commis- 
sion on  collections;  and  the  same  system  reduced  the  salary 
of  market  officials  to  a  nominal  sum.  The  important  sala- 
ried offices  of  the  corporation  in  1815  were:  Mayor  ($2500), 
Register  ($1400),  City  Commissioners  and  clerk  ($2400), 
Port  Wardens  ($1600),  Health  Officers  ($600),  Superinten- 
dent of  Streets  and  Pumps  ($960),  Market  Clerks  ($972.50). 

Interest  on  Debt. 

The  inherited  Town  debt  was  extinguished  within  a  few 
years  by  payments  from  out  the  current  revenues  of  the 
municipality.  No  appreciable  expenditure  for  interest  upon 
the  incipient  municipal  debt  became  necessary  before  1810, 
in  which  year  a  slight  outlay  was  required.  This  increased 
gradually  towards  the  close  of  the  period. 


CHAPTER  III     ' 

MTTNTCIPAL  REVENUE. 

The  characteristic  feature  of  the  municipal  income  of 
Baltimore  in  the  years  from  1797  to  1816  was  its  essential 
rigidity.  The  maximum  tax  levies  authorized  by  the  char- 
ter and  by  enabling  acts  of  the  legislature  were  imposed 
from  the  first.  In  the  absence  of  any  power  to  impose 
further  local  charges,  receipts  could  only  grow  with  the 
normal  growth  of  the  bases  of  revenue.  An  inadequate 
assessment  machinery  prevented  the  yield  of  the  general 
property  tax  from  keeping  pace  with  the  growth  of  the 
city  in  population  and  in  wealth.  Such  was  not  the  case 
with  the  license  taxes  and  the  tax  on  auction  receipts,  and 
these  two  items  constituted  the  two  most  important  items 
of  compulsory  revenue.  The  special  assessment  continued 
in  the  twenty  years  following  the  incorporation  of  Balti- 
more, as  in  the  period  immediately  preceding,  the  ordinary 
fiscal  device  for  effecting  the  opening  and  paving  of  streets, 
the  construction  of  sewers,  the  sinking  of  wells  and  the 
erection  of  pumps.  Wharfage  receipts  contributed  appre- 
ciably to  municipal  revenue,  and  fines  and  forfeitures  to  a 
slight  degree. 

Taxation. 

General  Property  Tax.  The  charter  of  1797  authorized 
the  corporation  "  to  lay  and  collect  taxes  not  exceeding 
two  dollars  in  the  hundred  pounds  in  any  one  year."  A 
particular  district  of  the  city,  Deptford  Hundred,  long  pro- 
nounced in  its  opposition  to  the  incorporation  of  Baltimore, 
was  conciliated  by  specific  exemption  from  any  tax,  direct 


74  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

or  indirect,  laid  for  the  improvement  of  the  harbor  and 
wharves/ 

(Assessment),.  The  valuation  of  property  made  in  1792 
and  used  thereafter  as  the  basis  of  public  levies  constituted 
the  basis  of  the  first  municipal  levy  in  1797.''  In  the  same 
year  an  act  for  the  general  revaluation  of  real  and  personal 
property  in  the  state  was  passed  by  the  General  Assembly/ 
General  re-assessments  were  subsequently  authorized  in 
1803  and  in  1812/  These  were  designed  primarily  for  state 
and  county  taxation,  but  were  promptly  utilized  for  the  mu- 
nicipal charge  as  soon  as  available.  In  each  of  these  acts 
as  in  the  earlier  statutes  of  1785  and  1792,°  a  board  of  five 
Commissioners  of  the  Tax  was  appointed  for  Baltimore  City 
and  for  each  county,  and  vested  with  general  control  of  the 
revaluation  of  property.  This  board  appointed  a  clerk  with 
as  many  assessors  as  required,  received  the  returns  of  the 
assessors  upon  the  completion  of  the  work,  and  acted  as  a 
board  of  review  and  appeal.  In  the  counties,  the  boards  of 
Commissioners  of  the  Tax  remained  in  activity  in  the  inter- 
vals between  general  reassessments,  assessing  new  property 
and  allowing  deductions  for  that  destroyed  or  transferred.' 
In  Baltimore  City,  the  Commissioners  of  the  Tax  seem  to 
have  exercised  no  corresponding  function  after  the  comple- 
tion of  each  reassessment. 

Ample  power  for  distinct  local  revaluation  of  property 
for  purposes  of  local  taxation  was  contained  in  the  sup- 
plementary statute  of  1797.  The  corporation  was  therein  au- 
thorized "  to  make  new  assessment  of  all  real  and  personal 
property  as  often  as  it  may  be  necessary."  But  limited  use 
was  made  of  this  broad  authority.  At  an  early  session  of 
the  Council,  the  city  was  divided  into  three  districts,  for 

^  In  1806,  "  Rogers's  Addition,"  then  already  a  part  of  the  city, 
was  exempted  from  all  corporate  taxes  and  dues  ("  Laws  of  Mary- 
land," 1805,  ch.  42). 

"  See  above,  page  26.  "  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1797,  ch.  89. 

*  Ibid.,  1803,  ch.  92;  1812,  ch.  191. 

"Ibid.,  1785,  ch.  53;  1792,  ch.  71. 

" "  Report  of  Maryland  Tax  Commission  "  (1888),  p.  cxxxiv. 


THE   FINANCES   OF   BALTIMORE   CITY,    I797-1816         75 

each  of  which  an  assessor  was  appointed.  These  assessors 
were  authorized  to  copy  from  the  books  of  the  Commission- 
ers of  the  Tax  for  Baltimore  Town  the  assessment  of  real 
and  personal  property  made  by  them,  and  to  add  thereto  the 
value  of  all  alterations  and  improvements,  and  of  all  new 
and  unassessed  property.  They  could  make  no  change  in 
the  valuation  of  property  already  assessed.  Appeal  from 
the  valuation  of  any  one  assessor  lay  to  the  final  judgment 
of  his  two  associates.  The  Mayor  was  empowered  to  make 
transfers  in  assessed  valuation  and  to  allow  for  insolvencies, 
as  theretofore  done  by  the  Commissioners  of  the  Tax  for 
Baltimore  Town.^  Similar  provision  for  additions  and 
transfers  was  made  in  the  municipal  levies  of  1801,  181 1, 
and  1 81 6 — the  aggregate  valuation  of  any  one  year  serving 
as  the  basis  for  that  of  the  following  revision.  In  1808  and 
thereafter,  appeal  from  the  valuation  of  an  assessor  lay  to 
the  Mayor  instead  of  to  the  other  assessors." 

The  several  reassessment  measures  provided  for  the  valu- 
ation for  purposes  of  taxation  of  all  personal  and  real  prop- 
erty. Slaves  and  silver  plate  were  estimated  at  fixed  rates, 
and  churches,  colleges,  mechanics'  tools  and  crops  in  the 
possession  of  the  producer  were  ordinarily  exempted  from 
taxation.* 

(Rate),.  The  charter  of  Baltimore  placed  a  statutory 
limitation,  as  noted  above,  upon  the  local  tax  rate.  The 
maximum  levy  authorized,  two  dollars  on  every  hundred 
pounds,  was  promptly  imposed  in  1797  in  the  equivalent 
form  of  fifteen  shillings,  and  with  the  exception  of  1800, 
when  one  half  of  the  ordinary  rate  was  levied,  annually 
thereafter  until  the  close  of  the  period.* 

*  Ordinance  of  April  24,  1797. 

*  Ordinances  of  March  5,  1801;  March  9,  1808;  March  11,  1811; 
March  2,  1816. 

*Thus  see  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1812,  ch.  191.  For  details  of  the 
early  state  reassessments,  v.  "  Report  of  Maryland  Tax  Commission 
(1888),"  p.  cxxx  et  seq. 

*  In  1812  the  levy  was  first  expressed  in  the  national  currency, 
«.  e.,  two  dollars. 


76  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF    BALTIMORE 

No  Other  direct  tax  was  levied  in  Baltimore  prior  to  1817. 
In  1815  renewed  application  was  made  to  the  General  As- 
sembly for  authority  to  impose  a  special  tax  to  discharge 
that  part  of  the  debt  contracted  in  defense  of  the  city  in 
the  War  of  181 2  and  not  assumed  by  the  federal  govern- 
ment; but  the  necessary  power  was  not  granted/ 

(Collection).  No  permanent  machinery  at  first  existed 
for  the  collection  of  the  tax.  An  early  session  of  the  City 
Council  authorized  the  appointment  of  a  collector  to  re- 
ceive all  Town  taxes  and  local  dues;  but  the  activity  of 
this  functionary  apparently  ceased  with  the  completion  of 
this  particular  task.*  In  each  municipal  levy,  provision  was 
made  for  the  appointment  of  an  independent  collector, 
bonded  for  the  faithful  performance  of  his  duties.  These 
consisted,  in  the  main,  of  the  delivery  of  a  tax  duplicate  to 
every  property  owner,  and  in  the  completion  of  collection 
within  a  specified  time.  With  this  period  expired  the  au- 
thority of  the  collector  to  enforce  payment.  If  the  collec- 
tion was  still  unfinished,  the  securities  of  the  collector  be- 
came liable,  and  the  passage  of  a  special  ordinance  extend- 
ing the  time  within  which  collection  could  be  made  was 
necessary.' 

The  annually  recurring  appointment  of  a  collector  tended 
to  establish  the  office  definitely,  and  by  1812  the  "  City  Col- 
lector "  may  be  said  to  have  become  a  formal  municipal 
officer.* 

A  characteristic  of  the  direct  tax  was  its  high  cost  of  col- 
lection. The  collector  was  compensated  by  a  commission 
varying  from  six  to  eight  per  cent,  upon  collections  of  the 
direct  tax,  and  from  five  to  eight  per  cent,  of  the  collections 
of  other  local  charges.  The  office  soon  became,  as  it 
throughout  continued,  one  of  the  pleasant  places  in  the 
municipal  administration. 

Specific  Taxes.     The  specific  taxes  imposed  in  1782  upon 

^  Resolutions  of  1815,  No.  i.  '  Ordinance  of  March  27,  1797. 

^  Ordinances  of  March  9,  1804;  March  18,  1814;  March  4,  1815. 
*  Thus  see  Ordinance  of  March  24,  1813. 


THE   FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    I797-1816         'J'J 

four-wheeled  vehicles,  chairs  or  sulkies,  drays,  wagons  or 
carts,  and  riding  horses,  as  described  above,  remained  in 
force  in  unchanged  form  after  the  incorporation  of  the  city 
in  1796. 

For  some  years  such  taxes,  as  all  other  municipal  dues, 
were  probably  collected  by  the  City  Collector  upon  his 
own  information.  In  1812,^  and  in  every  subsequent  levy 
of  the  direct  property  tax,  provision  was  made  for  the 
appointment  by  the  Mayor  of  a  person  to  take  account  of 
all  vehicles  taxable,  and  to  make  return  thereof.  The  au- 
thorized tax  was  then  collected  by  the  City  Collector. 

Auction  Receipts  Tax.  The  authority  to  impose  a  local 
tax  upon  auction  receipts,  renewed  by  the  General  Assembly 
to  the  Port  Wardens  of  Baltimore  Town  in  1790  for  a  period 
of  seven  years  and  transferred  to  the  Mayor  and  City 
Council  in  1796,  expired  almost  immediately  after  the  in- 
corporation of  Baltimore.^  The  charter  of  the  city  author- 
ized the  corporation  "  to  provide  for  licensing  and  regulat- 
ing auctions  and  pawn-brokers  within  the  city  and  pre- 
cincts thereof."  Apparently  upon  the  strength  of  this  gen- 
eral power,  an  early  ordinance  was  passed  by  the  Council, 
providing  for  the  continuance  of  the  tax  in  unchanged  form. 
The  auctioneers  of  the  city  were  required  to  pay  the  City 
Treasurer  one-fourth  of  one  per  cent,  (five  shillings  on 
€very  hundred  pounds)  on  all  sales  made  by  them.  Quar- 
terly account  with  the  Treasurer  was  prescribed  and  the 
bondsmen  of  the  auctioneers  were  made  liable  for  any 
breach  of  the  ordinance.* 

In  1 80 1  the  tax  was  increased  to  one  half  of  one  per  cent, 
(fifty  cents  on  every  hundred  dollars).  The  Register  in- 
stead of  the  Treasurer  received  quarterly  returns,  and  auc- 
tioneers were  required  to  keep  exact  account  of  all  sales 
and  upon  demand  to  submit  the  same  to  the  inspection  of 
the  Mayor.*     In  1802  the  tax  was  further  increased  to  one 

*  Ordinance  of  March  6,  1812.  "  See  above,  page  34. 

*  Ordinance  of  April  27,  1797.       *  Ordinance  of  February  20,  1801. 


78  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

per  cent.,  at  which  amount  it  remained  until  the  close  of  the 
period. 

Lottery  Tax.  The  General  Assembly  in  1791^  prohibited 
any  private  lottery  in  Baltimore  Town.  After  the  incorpo- 
ration of  the  city,  special  acts  continued  to  be  passed  from 
time  to  time  authorizing  specific  lotteries.  In  the  confir- 
matory ordinances  passed  by  the  City  Council,  the  provis- 
ion was  commonly  inserted  that  six  per  cent,  of  the  amount 
proposed  to  be  raised  should  be  paid  to  the  Register  of 
the  city  by  the  managers  of  the  particular  lottery .'^  This 
clause  did  not  appear  in  every  instance,'  and  no  general 
statute  was  at  any  time  passed.  In  1817,  lotteries  were 
subjected  to  a  five  per  cent,  state  tax  on  the  value  of  the 
prizes,  and  thereafter  yielded  no  revenue  to  the  city  treas- 
ury.* 

License  Taxes.  Prior  to  the  incorporation  of  the  city,  but 
slight  fiscal  use  was  made  of  the  local  license  tax.  After 
1797,  more  frequent  recourse  was  had  thereto,  and  the 
revenues  accruing  from  this  source  came  ultimately  to  form 
an  important  item  in  the  municipal  budget.  The  import- 
ant objects  liable  to  such  charges  were,  (i)  Municipal 
Offices;  (ii)  Vehicles;  (iii)  Pubhc  Amusements. 

(Municipal  Offices).  The  administration  of  Baltimore 
Town  was  slow  to  add  to  its  salaried  officials.  As  from 
time  to  time  necessary  functionaries  were  appointed,  fees 
and  perquisites  were  ordinarily  appropriated  in  lieu  of  sal- 
aries. This  same  tendency  continued  after  the  incorpora- 
tion of  Baltimore  in  1796.  As  the  city  grew  in  population 
and  wealth,  the  fees  accruing  became  disproportionate  to 
the  service  rendered,  and  the  municipality  endeavored  to 
efTect  a  proper  adjustment,  partly  by  substituting  a  fixed 
salary  for  remuneration  by  fees,  more  generally  by  impos- 
ing a  license  tax  upon  the  official  and  his  function. 

*  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1791,  ch.  59. 

*  Ordinances  of  March  14,  1803;  March  8,  1804;  March  3,  1808; 
June  25,  1808;  February  27,  1812. 

'  Thus  see  Ordinance  of  March  9,  1804. 

*  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1817,  ch.  154. 


THE   FINANCES    OF    BALTIMORE    CITY,    I797-1816         79 

In  1798  a  general  ordinance  was  passed  directing  all  offi- 
cers of  the  corporation  to  whom  fees  or  perquisites  were 
given  in  lieu  of  a  salary,  to  obtain  from  the  Mayor  a  license 
under  the  public  seal  of  the  city/  The  same  measure  im- 
posed license  taxes  upon  inspectors  of  flour  ($ioo),  inspec- 
tors of  salted  provisions  ($ioo),  and  upon  gangers  of  flour 
($5).  This  was  followed  by  a  series  of  similar  enactments, 
imposing  license  taxes  of  varying  amount  upon  the  inspec- 
tion officers  of  the  corporation. 

Analogous  to  the  license  tax  upon  inspection  officers  was 
that  imposed  upon  auctioneers,  whose  vocation  was  always 
regarded  as  quasi-public  in  character.  In  the  same  cate- 
gory may  also  be  classed  a  license  tax  upon  brokers  im- 
posed by  an  ordinance  of  1798.'' 

(Vehicles).  In  addition  to  the  specific  taxes  imposed  by 
the  act  of  1782,  all  vehicles  used  for  the  transportation  of 
goods  were  in  1798  subjected  to  an  annual  license  tax  and 
a  slight  registration  fee.*  In  1801,  "to  encourage  the  in- 
troduction and  use  of  broad  wheels,"  vehicles  so  provided 
were  exempted  from  both  the  tax  of  1782,  and  the  license 
tax  of  1798.  Narrow  wheel  vehicles  theretofore  prohibited 
were  permitted  subject  to  special  license  taxes.* 

(Public  Amusements),  In  1797  a  general  ordinance  was 
passed  requiring  all  theatrical  and  dramatic  performances 
to  be  licensed  by  the  Mayor  and  prescribing  the  charge 
("  tax  or  fine  ")  to  be  imposed."  A  supplementary  ordi- 
nance of  the  following  year  imposed  an  annual  license  tax, 
in  lieu  of  all  other  charges,  upon  public  billiard  tables.' 
License  taxes  were  also  imposed  upon  market  traders  and 
upon  dogs.^ 

^  Ordinance  of  March  19,  1798. 

*  Ordinance  of  February  28,  1798. 

*  Ordinance  of  March  10,  1798. 

*  Ordinance  of  March  21,  1801;  re-enacted  with  a  revised  schedule 
of  charges  by  Ordinance  of  March  8,  1807. 

*  Ordinance  of  March  28,  1797.     *  Ordinance  of  March  19,  1798. 

^  The  license  tax  on  dogs  was  collected  first  by  the  City  Collector, 
then  by  the  City  Constables,  and  finally  by  the  Superintendent  of 
Chimney  Sweeps! 


80  the  financial  history  of  baltimore 

Special  Assessments. 

The  principal  purposes  for  which  special  assessments 
were  levied  were  the  paving  and  reconstruction  of  streets, 
and  the  supply  of  public  pumps  and  wells. 

The  proceeds  of  the  special  assessment  imposed  for  street 
paving  formed  an  important  item  of  municipal  revenue 
throughout  the  entire  period  from  1797  to  1816.  The  pro- 
ceeds of  the  "  pump  tax  "  varied  slightly  during  the  first 
half  of  the  period;  after  1808  it  became  of  little  conse- 
quence, rallying  somewhat  just  before  i8i6.  The  entire  as- 
sessment levied  in  the  course  of  street  reconstruction  was 
ordinarily  awarded  in  the  form  of  damages  to  property  in- 
jured by  the  change,  and  consequently  figured  to  but  small 
amount  in  the  municipal  budget. 

Street  Paving.  An  early  ordinance  prescribed  the  ma- 
chinery for  levying  the  special  assessment  for  paving  pur- 
poses, or  "  paving  tax,"  as  it  was  commonly  called.  After 
determining  the  particular  street  to  be  paved,  the  City  Com- 
missioners were  directed  to  make  out  a  list  of  all  persons 
liable  to  the  assessment  with  the  amount  liable,  and  to  pre- 
sent a  revised  copy  thereof  to  the  City  Collector,  who 
was  required  to  make  collections  and  to  pay  over  to 
the  City  Treasurer  the  proceeds  less  his  commission.^  The 
City  Commissioners  were  authorized  to  draw  on  the  Treas- 
urer for  the  aggregate  amount  of  the  assessment  arid  to 
apply  the  same  to  the  purpose  designed.  Any  surplus  re- 
mained in  the  Treasury  for  the  use  of  the  city,  while  deficits 
were  met  from  out  the  funds  appropriated  for  the  use  of 
the  City  Commissioners.  The  mode  of  estimating  benefit 
continued,  as  provided  by  the  statute  of  1791,  the  foot-front 
rule,  with  the  amount  charged  per  foot  varying  according 
to  the  width  of  the  particular  street.'  Experience  soon 
showed  that  the  "  paving  tax  "  thus  assessed  was  insuffi- 
cient in  yield,  and  a  few  months  later  the  City  Commis- 
sioners were  directed  to  increase  the  prescribed  charges 

^  Ordinance  of  April  2,  1797.  '  See  above,  page  24. 


THE   FINANCES   OF   BALTIMORE   CITY,    I797-1816         81 

twenty-five  per  cent.^  In  1800,  upon  the  representation  of 
the  City  Commissioners  that  "  the  present  paving  tax  is 
unequal  in  its  operation  as  the  streets,  lanes  and  alleys  are 
of  different  width,  and  that  an  average  tax  on  the  square 
foot  would  be  more  just,"  an  ordinance  was  passed  fixing 
the  assessment  at  nine  cents  per  square  foot  upon  the  area 
to  be  paved.*  The  rule  of  apportionment  still  continued  to 
be  frontage  as  the  assumed  measure  of  benefit.  The  only 
change  in  the  machinery  of  collection  was  that  the  City 
Commissioners  issued  their  warrant  to  the  Collector  for  the 
collection  of  assessments. 

Occasionally  the  proceeds  of  the  assessment  were  supple- 
mented by  a  direct  appropriation  from  out  the  City  Treas- 
ury.* In  paving  Market  Street  in  1801,  the  chief  thorough- 
fare of  the  city  and  a  street  of  unusual  width,  the  City  Com- 
missioners were  directed  to  divide  the  street  into  three 
strips,  two  of  which,  thirty  feet  each  in  width,  were  to  be 
paved  by  special  assessment,  while  the  Commissioners  were 
to  pave  the  middle  strip  at  the  expense  of  the  corporation.* 
More  curious  was  a  case  occurring  in  the  same  year,  in 
which  an  appropriation  having  been  made  to  a  contractor 
for  filling  up  a  certain  street,  he  was  further  authorized  to 
receive  from  owners  of  abutting  property,  to  defray  the  cost 
of  paving  the  same  street,  sums  of  money  identical  in 
amount  and  mode  of  collection  with  a  special  assessment." 

Street  Reconstruction.  The  charter  empowered  the  cor- 
poration to  establish  new,  and  to  alter  old  streets  with  the 
consent  of  property  owners  affected;  but  neither  it  nor  the 
supplementary  statute  authorized  a  special  assessment  for 
this  purpose.  In  consequence,  a  special  act  of  the  General 
Assembly  was  necessary  whenever  any  important'  street 
reconstruction  was  contemplated.     The  procedure  author- 

^  Ordinance  of  July  12,  1797.  *  Ordinance  of  March  6,  1800. 

'  Ordinances  of  February  20,  1799,  and  March  15,  1803. 

*  Ordinance  of  March  15,  1801. 

'  Ordinance  of  February  24,  1801.  Procedure  relating  to  the  levy 
of  the  special  assessment  was  re-enacted  in  Ordinance  of  March  9, 
1807. 

G 


82  THE   FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

ized  by  such  statutes,  was  ordinarily,  as  follows :  The  sher- 
iff of  Baltimore  County,  having  given  at  least  ten  days' 
notice  in  one  of  the  Baltimore  newspapers,  summoned  a 
jury  of  twelve  freeholders  of  the  city,  who,  having  been 
duly  sworn,  proceeded  to  make  awards  for  damages  and  to 
assess  a  corresponding  amount  upon  the  property  benefit- 
ed. The  sums  assessed  were  filed  in  the  Register's  office 
and  constituted  a  lien  upon  the  property  affected.  Suit 
for  the  recovery  of  the  damages  awarded  might  be  instituted 
within  six  months  in  the  Baltimore  County  Court."  In 
the  suburbs  the  Commissioners  of  the  Precincts  or  spe- 
cially appointed  commissioners  performed  the  duties  ordi- 
narily vested  in  the  City  Commissioners.  Such  bodies  often 
acted  also  as  a  jury  for  the  award  of  damages  and  the 
assessment  of  benefits.^  Occasionally  damages  were 
awarded  and  benefits  assessed  by  a  board  of  five  "  disin- 
terested assessors  "  appointed  in  each  case  by  the  Mayor, 
instead  of  by  the  jury  summoned  by  the  county  sheriff. 

The  proceeds  of  the  special  assessment  were  designed  to 
defray  the  entire  expenditure  involved.  At  times  when  the 
improvement  was  large  and  costly,  the  city,  as  has  been 
said,  made  a  direct  appropriation  in  aid." 

Wells  and  Pumps.  In  the  supplementary  statute  of  1797 
wells  and  pumps  were  enumerated  among  the  objects  for 
which  a  special  assessment  might  be  levied.  The  pro- 
cedure of  assessment  and  collection  was  prescribed  in  de- 
tail in  the  following  year.*  When  a  new  pump  was  to  be 
erected,  the  Superintendent  of  Pumps  in  the  ward  wherein 
it  was  to  be  placed,  acting  with  the  superintendent  of  any 
other  ward,  levied  on  all  assessable  property  liable  to  be 
benefited,  wherever  located,  "  such  a  sum  on  every  hundred 
pounds  of  property  as  it  may  stand  upon  the  books  of  the 
City  Assessors  as  will  be  just  and  equal."     The  mode  of 

*  See  references  in  note  3,  page  59,  above. 

'"Laws  of  Maryland,"  1812,  ch.  120;  1813,  ch.  67;  1816,  ch.  143; 
1817,  ch.  71,  IIS,  117- 

*  Ibid.,  1813,  ch.  176,  182;  1816,  ch.  62,  162,  171, 

*  Ordinance  of  March  10,  1798. 


THE    FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    I797-1816         83 

collection  and  expenditure  of  the  "  pump  tax  "  was  as  in 
the  case  of  the  "  paving  tax." 

In  1803  the  objects  for  which  the  special  assessment 
might  be  laid  were  extended  to  the  sinking  of  new  wells, 
and  to  any  alteration  or  addition  to  any  existing  well  or 
pump/  Authority  was  sometimes  given  for  the  construc- 
tion of  public  wharves,  the  cost  to  be  defrayed  by  special 
assessment.  The  procedure  authorized  was  as  in  the  case 
of  street  reconstruction — arward  of  damages  and  assessment 
of  benefits  by  a  jury  summoned  by  the  county  sheriff,  later 
by  a  board  of  five  assessors  appointed  by  the  Mayor.^  More 
exceptional  were  the  imposition  of  special  assessments  for 
the  paving  of  gutters  in  1807,'  for  the  construction  of  sewers 
in  the  western  precincts  of  the  city  in  181 5,*  and  for  the 
wharfing  of  the  basin  in  1805  and  thereafter." 

Fees. 

A  fee  has  been  defined  as  "  a  payment  to  defray  the  cost 
of  each  recurring  service  undertaken  by  the  government 
primarily  in  the  public  interest,  but  conferring  a  measur- 
able special  advantage  on  the  fee-payer."  °  So  understood, 
local  fees  play  an  insignificant  part  in  the  early  finances  of 
Baltimore  City,  The  exaction  of  such  charges  was  author- 
ized in  the  series  of  inspection  ordinances,  noted  above;  but 
the  proceeds  constituted  the  perquisites  of  the  otherwise  un- 
paid officials,  and  formed  no  part  of  the  municipal  budget. 
They  indeed  obviated  the  payment  of  salaries  to  a  consider- 
able number  of  municipal  officials,  and  as  such  constituted 
an  indirect  form  of  municipal  revenue.  This  connection  is 
seen  in  the  promptness  with  which  the  municipality  inter- 
vened by  means  of  license  taxes  when  the  fees  aggregated 

*  Ordinance  of  March  25,  1803. 

'  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1805,  ch.  84;  1810,  ch.  103;  1815,  ch.  34,  206. 
'  Ordinance  of  March  9,  1807. 

*  "  Laws  of  Maryland."  1815,  ch.  82. 

'Ibid.,  1805,  ch.  84;  1810,  ch.  103;  1813,  ch.  71;  1815,  ch.  206. 

*  Seligman,  "  Essays  in  Taxation,"  p.  304. 


84  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

more  than  a  fair  compensation,  and  in  the  rough  adaptation 
thereafter  of  tax  to  proceeds/  On  the  whole  however  the 
method  here  pursued — neglect  of  both  receipts  and  expen- 
ditures of  this  kind — appears  the  simpler  device,  and  more 
in  accord  with  actual  experience. 

A  few  instances  occur  in  which  an  actual  fee  was  exacted. 
Thus  the  City  Commissioners  were  early  directed  to  re- 
ceive one  dollar  per  day  for  the  use  of  the  city  from  per- 
sons requiring  their  services  for  determining  lot  boundaries 
or  regulating  party  walls.'  In  1798  the  owners  of  wagons 
and  carts  were  required  to  pay  to  the  City  Register  a  regis- 
tration fee  of  fifty  cents.  In  the  same  year  the  City  Regis- 
ter was  directed  to  charge  $2  and  $1,  for  every  fixture  of 
the  city  seal. 

By  an  early  ordinance  of  the  City  Council,  the  Mayor  was 
directed  to  receive  from  the  Maryland  Fire  Insurance  Com- 
pany a  formal  transfer  of  the  right  vested  in  that  corpora- 
tion of  erecting  a  magazine  for  storing  gunpowder.  An 
appropriation  was  made  for  construction,  and  the  Mayor 
was  authorized  to  impose  a  reasonable  "  storage  or  rate  " 
upon  powder  stored  in  the  public  magazine.'  Income  from 
this  source  was  more  in  the  nature  of  a  quasi-private  re- 
ceipt than  of  a  fee. 

Fines  and  Forfeitures. 

The  charter  of  Baltimore  vested  the  corporation  with  the 
expressed  power  "  to  impose  and  appropriate  fines,  penal- 
ties and  forfeitures,  for  the  breach  of  their  by-laws  or  ordi- 
nances." Such  charges  when  imposed  by  the  ordinances 
of  the  city  were  recoverable  before  a  single  magistrate  as  in 
the  case  of  small  debts,  if  not  exceeding  twenty  dollars;  or 
in  larger  amount,  by  action  of  debt  in  Baltimore  County 
Court. 

All  regulative  ordinances  of  the  corporation  imposed  spe- 

^  See  below,  page  78.  *  Ordinance  of  April  10,  1797. 

'  Ordinance  of  May  6,  1797. 


THE    FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    I797-1816         85 

cific  or  maximum  fines  and  penalties  for  non-compliance, 
A  common  provision  was,  that  of  the  fines  so  recovered, 
one-half  should  be  paid  to  the  informer  and  the  other  half 
be  appropriated  for  the  use  of  the  city.  An  early  ordinance 
vested  the  Mayor  with  power  to  remit  so  much  of  the  city's 
part  of  any  fine,  not  exceeding  twenty  dollars,  as  seemed 
"  just  and  reasonable."  ^  The  mode  of  recovery  and  col- 
lection varied.  In  some  cases  it  was  vested  in  the  City 
Collector;^  in  others  in  the  Mayor;'  in  still  others,  in  the 
officials  designed  to  enforce  the  provisions  of  the  ordinances, 
as  the  clerks  of  the  markets  or  the  various  inspection  offi- 
cers. 

Quasi-Private  Receipts. 

Wharves.  The  ordinance  of  April  24,  1797,  vesting  in  the 
corporation  the  powers  before  exercised  by  the  Port  War- 
dens definitely  authorized  the  collection  of  wharfage  charges 
by  a  Harbor  Master  therein  appointed.  In  1801,  such  re- 
ceipts were  appropriated  to  the  improvement  and  repair  of 
the  particular  wharves  and  docks  from  which  they  had  been 
collected,  and  the  Mayor  was  authorized  to  appoint  one  or 
more  commissioners  for  each  public  wharf  to  superintend 
the  expenditure  of  the  funds  so  accruing.*  This  ordinance 
was  to  remain  in  force  for  a  single  year;  but  the  practice 
appears  to  have  continued,  until  again  specifically  author- 
ized in  1807."  In  1813,  the  list  of  commodities  liable  to 
wharfage  was  enlarged  so  as  to  include  every  ordinary 
article  of  commerce.  Rates  varying  from  twenty  cents  to 
one-half  cent  per  package  were  imposed,  and  a  general 
clause  added  that  all  unenumerated  articles  should  be 
charged  proportionate  to  bulk.     Owners  of  property  front- 

^  Ordinance  of  June  26,  1797.         "  Ordinance  of  March  27,  1797. 

'  Ordinance  of  May  6,  1797. 

*  Ordinance  of  May  21,  1801.  Municipal  ownership  of  wharves 
originated  in  the  extension  of  streets  to  the  harbor  and  the  reser- 
vation of  the  corresponding  water  front. 

'  Ordinance  of  April  8,  1807;  see  also  ordinance  of  March  15, 
1803. 


86  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF    BALTIMORE 

ing  upon  any  of  the  public  wharves  were  exempted  from  the 
payment  of  wharfage  charges  upon  goods  received  or  de- 
livered/ 

Much  dissatisfaction  appears  to  have  resulted  from  the 
operation  of  this  measure,  culminating  in  the  passage  of  an 
act  by  the  General  Assembly  of  Maryland  in  January,  1814, 
prohibiting  the  Mayor  and  City  Council  from  imposing  any 
"tax,  duty,  toll,  or  wharfage  upon  any  goods,  wares  or 
merchandise,  or  other  articles  for  the  passing  of  the  same 
over  any  of  the  public  wharves."  ^  The  power  of  the  cor- 
poration to  regulate  by  ordinance  the  time  during  which 
such  goods  might  remain  upon  the  wharves  was  reaffirmed. 
In  accordance  with  this  prohibition,  ordinances  were 
promptly  passed  repealing  all  specific  wharfage  charges, 
and  substituting  charges  based  upon  tonnage.  An  attempt 
was  made  in  the  following  year  to  return  to  the  system  of 
specific  charges,  but  the  illegality  of  this  procedure  in  face 
of  the  specific  prohibition  of  the  Legislature  soon  became 
apparent  and  the  ordinance  was  promptly  repealed." 

Markets.  Receipts  from  the  rental  of  market  stalls  and 
shambles,  which  played  so  important  a  part  in  the  economy 
of  Baltimore  Town,  continued  to  figure  to  some  extent  in 
the  corporate  budget.  The  "  market  codes  "  of  1797  and 
1805  alike  provided  for  the  appointment  of  a  salaried  clerk 
for  each  of  the  city  markets,  who  was  required  to  determine 
and  collect  the  rental  of  all  stalls,  to  keep  fair  and  regular 
account  of  the  proceeds,  and  to  pay  the  funds  so  received 
into  the  city  treasury.*  Upon  renting  a  stall  the  clerk 
issued  a  certificate,  stating  terms  and  tenure,  to  the  appli- 
cant, which  when  approved  by  the  Mayor  was  exchanged 
for  a  license  recorded  with  the  City  Register,  valid  for  one 
year  and  transferable  with  the  approbation  of  the  Mayor. 
All  market  traders  were  subject  to  an  annual  license  tax. 

*  Ordinance  of  March  24,  1813. 

'  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1813,  ch.  118. 

'  Ordinances  of  March  21,  1814;  March  25  and  July  27,  1815. 

*  Ordinances  of  April  11,  1797,  and  March  25,  1805. 


THE    FINANCES    OF    BALTIMORE    CITY,    I797-1816         87 

Lotteries.  An  annual  Town  lottery  was  authorized  by  the 
General  Assembly  in  1791/  the  proceeds  of  which  were  di- 
rected to  be  divided  between  the  Port  Wardens  and  the 
Special  Commissioners,  as  described  above.''  This  privi- 
lege was  transferred  to  the  municipality  in  1796,  but  seems 
never  to  have  been  regularly  exercised  thereafter,  if  indeed 
the  practice  had  not  fallen  into  virtual  disuse  before  the  in- 
corporation of  Baltimore^  In  1797,  1798  and  1808  special 
ordinances  were  passed  authorizing  public  lotteries  for  the 
purpose  of  raising  specific  amounts  ($9080;  $9086  and 
$9333.33,  respectively),  in  aid  of  municipal  revenues.  In  the 
first  two  instances,  three  bonded  commissioners  were  ap- 
pointed to  conduct  the  lottery  and  to  defray  all  expenses, 
including  their  own  remuneration  from  out  a  five  per  cent, 
commission  upon  gross  receipts.  In  the  third  case,  the 
Register  of  the  city  and  six  appointed  persons  were  named 
commissioners  to  conduct  the  lottery. 

Occasional  use  was  made  of  the  lottery  for  defraying  spe- 
cific municipal  expenditures.  Thus  in  1799,  commission- 
ers were  appointed  to  raise  by  lottery  the  sum  of  $4381,  for 
providing  an  adequate  water  supply.  In  1814  similar  pro- 
vision was  made  to  raise  the  net  sum  of  $100,000,  to  be 
expended  by  the  Mayor  and  City  Council  in  the  erection  of 
an  arsenal,"  and  in  181 6  a  public  lottery  to  raise  the  sum  of 
$50,000 — increased  in  1817  to  $1,000,000 — was  authorized, 
for  walling  in  Jones'  Falls  and  for  improving  Harford 
Street.* 

Gifts. 

Voluntary  contributions  figured  to  small  extent  in  local 
receipts  after  the  incorporation  of  Baltimore  City.  In  1799 
certain  proprietors  of  ground  are  said  to  have  "  raised 
a  considerable  sum  of  money  by  subscription,"  for  the 
purpose  of  erecting  a  bridge  across  Jones'  Falls."      Simi- 

*  "  Laws  of  Maryland."  1791,  ch.  59.  ^  See  above,  page  22. 
'  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1813.  ch.  125. 

*  Ibid.,  1815,  ch.  209;  1816,  ch.  138. 
'  Ordinance  of  February  27.  1799. 


88  THE   FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF    BALTIMORE 

larly  in  1808,  the  City  Council,  having  appropriated  the  sum 
of  ten  thousand  dollars  for  the  erection  of  a  stone  bridge 
across  Jones'  Falls  on  Baltimore  Street,  authorized  the 
Mayor  "  to  accept  for  the  use  of  the  corporation  any  dona- 
tion of  land  on  each  side  of  Jones'  Falls,  which  may  be 
useful  to,  or  will  improve  the  site  for  the  aforesaid  bridge."  ^ 
Under  this  head  are  perhaps  also  to  be  classed  certain 
revenues  appropriated  by  the  state  to  the  municipal  treas- 
ury. Thus  the  city  continued  for  a  time  after  incorpo- 
ration in  receipt  of  the  surplus  proceeds  of  "  ordinary  and 
retailers "  licenses  issued  by  Baltimore  County  Court  to 
taverns  within  the  city,  as  provided  in  the  statute  of  1784." 
In  1804,  revenue  from  this  source,  then  already  amounting 
to  some  $5000  per  annum,^  was  diverted  by  act  of  the  legis- 
lature into  the  state  treasury.* 

^  Ordinance  of  June  25,  1808. 

^  Ordinance  of  April  29,  1797;  also  see  above,  page  40. 

*  Griffiths,  "  Annals  of  Baltimore,"  p.  177. 

* "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1804,  ch.  93.  In  1815,  the  justices  of  the 
Orphans  Court  of  Baltimore  County  were  directed  to  pay  the  pro- 
ceeds of  intestate  estates  to  the  trustees  or  managers  of  the  several 
free  schools  of  Baltimore,  in  proportion  to  the  number  of  children 
educated  at  each  school;  ibid.,  1814,  ch.  131. 


CHAPTER  IV 

MTTNICIPAIi  INDEBTEDNESS. 

An  appreciable  floating  indebtedness — an  heritage  from 
the  administration  of  Baltimore  Town — devolved  upon  the 
municipality,  with  the  assumption  of  corporate  rights  in 
1796.  A  debt  of  $2200  had  been  incurred  by  the  local 
"  Committee  of  Health,"  and  remained  undischarged;  while 
the  unpaid  accounts  of  the  Special  Commissioners  of  Bal- 
timore Town  aggregated  $9981.15.  A  provision  of  the 
charter  specifically  authorized  a  levy  upon  the  assessable 
property  of  the  city  for  the  discharge  of  the  health  debt; 
but  no  recourse  seems  to  have  been  made  thereto.  Instead, 
the  surplus  revenues  of  the  city  were  devoted  to  the  dis- 
charge of  the  aggregate  indebtedness.  By  1798,  upwards 
of  six  thousand  dollars  had  been  so  paid,  and  by  1800  the 
entire  debt  had  been  extinguished. 

In  the  decade  following  the  incorporation  of  Baltimore, 
it  became  common  to  anticipate  municipal  income  by  in- 
formal loans,  the  proceeds  of  which  were  appropriated  to 
specific  purposes.  In  certain  of  these  ordinances,  the  cor- 
poration formally  guaranteed  the  repayment  of  the  loans, 
indemnified  the  commissioners  appointed  to  negotiate  them, 
and  pledged  the  revenue  of  the  city  for  their  ultimate  re- 
payment.^ A  more  common  clause  was  the  provision  that 
the  indebtedness  be  discharged  within  the  time  specified 

^Ordinances  of  April  24,  1797;  March  19,  1798;  April  23,  1798. 
In  the  ordinance  of  February  26,  1799,  authorizing  a  loan  to  provide 
an  adequate  water  supply,  the  profits  arising  from  the  undertaking 
and  from  all  future  lotteries  were  specifically  appropriated  for  the 
repayment  of  the  loan. 

(89) 


90  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

from  out  unappropriated  revenues  in  the  city  treasury,  or 
from  funds  accruing  thereto/ 

Prior  to  1812,  no  serious  difficulty  was  experienced  in 
accompHshing  this.  Rigid  economy  in  municipal  adminis- 
tration, with  strict  limitation  in  expenditure,  made  it  possible 
to  defray  from  out  the  ordinary  revenues  of  the  city  all 
current  expenditures,  to  discharge  the  inherited  Town  obli- 
gations and  to  extinguish  periodic  floating  indebtedness. 
The  City  Register's  summaries  from  1803  to  181 5  disclosed 
appreciable  balances  in  the  municipal  treasury  at  the  close 
of  each  fiscal  year.  The  balances  of  181 3  and  1814  were 
indeed  more  apparent  than  real.  In  1813  a  debt  of  $16,000 
to  the  banks  of  the  city  remained  undischarged  and  in  1814 
this  had  increased  to  $20,000.  But  under  normal  condi- 
tions, little  difficulty  would  doubtless  have  been  experienced 
in  extinguishing  this  obligation  at  the  first  favorable  turn 
in  the  city's  finances. 

The  stirring  events  of  the  War  of  1812  however  injected 
into  the  municipal  budget  a  large  and  unforeseen  item  of 
expenditure,  and  contributed  to  reduce  municipal  revenue. 
Current  indebtedness  not  only  remained  unpaid  but  steadily 
increased,  and  came  eventually  to  form  the  nucleus  of  the 
funded  municipal  debt  of  the  present  day.  Early  in  181 3 
British  vessels  entered  Chesapeake  Bay,  and  established  a 
blockade  upon  local  commerce.  The  city  at  once  prepared 
to  supplement  federal  and  state  measures  of  defense  by  ap- 
pointing a  Committee  of  Supply,  composed  of  the  Mayor 
and  seven  citizens,  and  appropriating  the  sum  of  $20,000. 
This  sum  was  found  inadequate,  and  a  municipal  convention 
was  called,  made  up  of  four  delegates  from  each  of  the 
wards  and  precincts.  This  body  recommended  a  municipal 
loan  not  exceeding  $500,000,  and  advised  that  authority  be 
sought  from  the  General  Assembly  to  levy  a  special  tax  in 
payment  thereof.  In  May,  1813,  the  city  petitioned  the 
General  Assembly  "  to  assume  the  debts  contracting  for 

^Ordinances  of  March  10,  1798;  March  14,  1806;  March  17,  1806. 


THE   FINANCES   OF   BALTIMORE   CITY,    I797-I816         9I 

public  defense,"  and  to  authorize  the  levy  of  a  special  di- 
rect tax  upon  the  city  and  precincts  for  their  ultimate  dis- 
charge. Both  petitions  were  refused  and  the  loan  in  the 
form  proposed  was  abandoned.  The  city  treasury  having 
now  become  depleted  and  the  local  situation  remaining 
serious,  the  corporation,  without  waiting  for  specific  au- 
thority, authorized  by  ordinance  of  May  10,  18 13,  a  loan  of 
$80,000  from  the  banks  of  the  city.^ 

Before  the  final  suspension  of  hostilities  occurred,  the  en- 
tire loan  so  authorized  had  been  contracted.  Renewed  at- 
tempt to  secure  authority  from  the  General  Assembly  to 
levy  a  special  tax  to  extinguish  it,  was  unattended  with  suc- 
cess.* The  current  obligations  of  the  city  were  further  in- 
creased by  successive  loans  in  181 5  and  1816  of  $10,000 
each  in  anticipation  of  municipal  revenues,'  making  the 
aggregate  indebtedness  of  the  city  at  the  close  of  the  period 
considered  about  $100,000. 

*  Mayor's  Communication  of  February  14,  1814;  Griffiths,  "  An- 
nals of  Baltimore,"  pp.  204-205,  213. 
^  Resolutions  of  February  Session,  1815,  No.  i. 
'  Resolutions  of  February  Session,  1815,  No.  3;  of  1816,  No.  6. 


PART  III 
THE  FINANCES  OF  BALTIMORE  CITY 

FROM   1817  TO   1856 

INTRODUCTION 

Relative  stability  in  administrative  organization  and 
marked  growth  in  municipal  consciousness  characterized 
the  institutional  development  of  Baltimore  in  the  forty  years 
from  1817  to  1856.  The  recovery  of  economic  interests 
from  the  reactionary  depression  following  the  War  of  1812 
was  succeeded  by  the  introduction  of  new  industrial  meth- 
ods and  appliances.  On  July  4,  1828,  Charles  Carroll  of 
CarroUton,  the  last  surviving  signer  of  the  Declaration  of 
Independence,  laid  the  first  rail  of  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio 
Railroad,  and  thus  "  One  man's  life  formed  the  connecting 
link  between  the  political  revolution  of  the  last  century  and 
the  industrial  revolution  of  the  present."  ^ 

Beginning  with  the  projection  of  improved  means  of 
communication  with  the  West  as  a  necessary  measure  for 
preventing  the  threatened  diversion  of  the  trade  of  that 
region  from  local  merchants,  Baltimore  plunged  boldly  into 
the  policy  of  aiding  works  of  internal  improvement.  The 
essential  features  of  the  modern  financial  system  of  the 
city  were  determined  by  1856,  and  that  determination  was 
shaped  largely  by  municipal  activity  in  this  direction.  The 
city  grew  steadily  in  wealth  and  population  and  preserved 

*  Hadley,  "  Railroad  Transportation,"  p.  i. 
(93) 


94  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

an  industrial  and  commercial  prominence,  some  part  of 
which  would  perhaps  otherwise  have  been  lost.  On  the 
other  hand  by  direct  municipal  loans  and  by  extension  of 
municipal  credit  to  various  railroads  and  canals,  in  the  con- 
struction of  which  it  was  believed  that  Baltimore  had  a 
direct  interest,  a  large  and  burdensome  funded  and  guar- 
anteed debt  was  incurred.  This  in  turn  necessitated  larger 
resort  to  the  corporate  power  of  taxation,  retrenchment  in 
ordinary  expenditure,  and  limitation  of  municipal  activity 
to  the  functions  already  assumed.  Normal  development 
along  these  lines  was  interrupted  by  the  emergence  of  a 
new  municipal  spirit,  coincident  with  the  completion  of  the 
Baltimore  and  Ohio  Railroad  in  1853,  and  expressed  in 
the  administration  of  Mayor  Thomas  Swann  in  1856. 


CHAPTER  I 

MTJNICIPAIi  ADMINISTRATION. 

Corporate  Powers. 

In  1818  the  General  Assembly  passed  an  "  Act  relating  to 
the  City  of  Baltimore,"  ^  which  constituted  an  important  sup- 
plement to  the  original  charter.  Powers  before  enjoyed 
by  the  commissioners  of  the  several  precincts  were  trans- 
ferred to  the  corporation.  The  city  was  divided  into  twelve 
wards,  instead  of  eight  as  theretofore,  with  provision  for  suc- 
cessive increase  to  fourteen,  sixteen,  eighteen  and  twenty, 
as  population  increased.  The  same  act  authorized  the  city 
to  lay  and  collect  direct  taxes  on  the  assessment  of  private 
property,  "  to  such  amount  as  shall  be  thought  necessary 
for  the  public  or  city  purposes  " ;  to  issue  stock  or  borrow 
money  to  an  amount  not  exceeding  one  million  dollars  "  for 
the  purpose  of  promoting  or  effecting  any  great  or  perma- 
nent improvements";  to  exercise  the  right  of  eminent  do- 
main in  effecting  municipal  improvements,  and  to  levy 
special  assessments  for  street  reconstruction.  In  1829,  upon 
petition  of  the  corporation,  the  Assembly  authorized  the 
Mayor  and  City  Council  to  pass  ordinances  regulating  the 
manner  of  appointing  all  municipal  officers.'  By  the  state 
constitution  of  1851,  Baltimore  City  was  separated  from 
Baltimore  County,  of  which  it  had  theretofore  been  a  for- 
mal part. 

Administrative  Organization. 

With  the  increase  in  the  number  of  city  wards  in  1818, 
the  number  of  City  Councilmen  and  of  Mayor's  Electors  un- 

^ "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1817,  ch.  148. 

*  Resolution  of  February  19,  1829,  p.  155;  "Laws  of  Maryland," 
1828,  ch.  114. 

(95) 


96  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF    BALTIMORE 

derwent  corresponding  change.  Important  modifications 
were  made  at  the  same  time  in  the  method  of  appointing 
municipal  officers.  Instead  of  merely  selecting  one  of  two 
candidates  nominated  for  each  office  by  the  City  Council/ 
the  Mayor  himself  appointed  all  officers,  subject  to  confir- 
mation by  the  Council.  The  only  exceptions  to  this  were 
the  City  Register  and  the  City  Clerks  who  were  elected  by 
the  two  branches  of  the  City  Council  in  joint  convention. 

In  1833,  influenced  by  the  spirit  of  democracy  then  domi- 
nant in  American  political  thought,  the  surviving  remnant 
of  the  electoral  system  was  swept  away  and  the  election  of 
the  Mayor  was  changed  to  direct  popular  choice.*  The  City 
Council  was  organized  in  its  modern  form  in  1845.  The 
city  was  divided  by  five  commissioners,  appointed  by  the 
governor  of  the  state,  into  twenty  wards  "  as  nearly  equal  in 
population  as  may  be,  and  the  boundaries  of  which  shall  be 
as  nearly  as  practicable  in  right  lines."  *  The  First  Branch 
of  the  City  Council  consisted  of  twenty  members,  one  from 
each  ward;  the  Second  Branch,  of  ten  members,  one  from 
two  contiguous  wards.*  Under  this  act  the  City  Council- 
men  continued  to  be  elected  annually;  but  in  the  following 
year  the  term  of  members  of  the  Second  Branch  was  ex- 
tended to  two  years." 

Detailed  changes  in  administrative  organization,  such  as 
the  establishment  of  the  Board  of  Commissioners  of  Public 
Schools  in  1828  and  the  successive  modification  of  the 
Board  of  City  Commissioners,  are  noted  below,  in  conjunc- 
tion with  the  financial  activity  of  the  corresponding  munici- 
pal department. 

^  See  above,  page  52. 

*  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1832,  ch.  206;  in  response  to  resolution  of 
Mayor  and  City  Council  of  February  14,  1833,  No.  16. 

^  It  is  curious  to  note  that  of  these  five  commissioners,  three  were 
chosen  from  citizens  of  Baltimore  residing  west  and  two  east  of 
Jones'  Falls. 

*  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1844,  ch.  282. 
'  Ibid.,  184s,  ch.  238. 


the  finances  of  baltimore  city,  1817-1856      97 

Financial  Machinery. 

The  financial  mechanism  of  the  municipality  centered  in 
the  office  of  the  City  Register.  After  1818  this  official  was 
elected  annually  by  the  two  chambers  of  the  City  Council 
in  joint  session.  He  performed  the  functions  both  of  treas- 
urer and  auditor,  receiving  and  guarding  all  public  moneys, 
examining  all  accounts  presented  for  payment  and  making 
all  proper  disbursements.  The  appointment  of  a  Deputy 
Register  was  authorized  in  1836,  for  the  performance  of 
such  duties  as  the  Register  might  direct.^ 

The  collection  of  municipal  taxes,  special  assessments 
and  other  local  charges,  both  current  and  in  arrears,  re- 
mained vested  in  the  hands  of  the  City  Collector,  save 
when  otherwise  provided.  The  Collector  was  charged  by 
the  Register  with  the  maximum  amounts  collectible  under 
the  several  levies  and  credited  with  the  payments  periodi- 
cally made.  Tax  arrearages  were  carried  forward  from 
year  to  year  in  open  account.  In  1852-53  a  City  Auditor 
was  appointed  and  vested  with  the  audit  of  municipal  tax 
and  assessment  collections,  before  performed  by  the  Regis- 
ter.* A  year  later  the  function  of  the  Auditor  was  changed 
to  the  collection  of  tax  arrearages,  of  which  duty  the  Col- 
lector was  thereby  relieved.'  The  audit  and  control  of  mu- 
nicipal accounts  thus  again  devolved  upon  the  City  Regis- 
ter. In  1856,  Mayor  Samuel  Hinks  suggested  the  appoint- 
ment of  a  City  Comptroller  to  supervise  the  entire  financial 
affairs  of  the  corporation,*  and  the  establishment  of  the 
office  in  1857  may  be  regarded  as  one  of  the  important 
features  of  the  succeeding  period  of  municipal  history. 

The  negotiation  of  funded  loans  and  the  custody  of  the 
sinking  fund  were  at  first  entrusted  to  the  Mayor  and  the 
president  of  the  two  Branches  of  the  City  Council.     In  18 18 

*  Ordinance  of  January  30,  1836,  No.  2. 
'Ordinances  of  June  18,  1852;  March  18,  1853. 
'  Ordinance  of  March  9,  1855. 

*  Mayor's  Message  of  January,  1856. 


98  THE    FINANCIAL    HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

a  board  of  three  Commissioners  of  Finance  was  vested  with 
all  duties  relating  to  the  issue  of  city  stock,  and  a  body  of 
three  Commissioners  of  the  Sinking  Fund,  with  the  amorti- 
zation of  funded  indebtedness/  In  1826  the  Commission- 
ers of  the  Sinking  Fund  were  discharged,  and  their  duties 
transferred  to  the  Commissioners  of  Finance/ 

The  Budget. 

The  form  of  the  municipal  budget  and  the  order  of 
budgetary  procedure  may  be  said  to  have  taken  definite 
shape  within  the  period  here  considered.  Estimates  of  an- 
ticipated expenditures  and  revenues  for  the  ensuing  fiscal 
year  were  obtained  by  the  joint  Ways  and  Means  Com- 
mittee, at  first  directly  from  the  several  municipal  offices, 
after  1840  through  the  instrumentality  of  the  City  Regis- 
ter.' Upon  the  basis  of  these  estimates,  a  general  appro- 
priation bill  was  reported  to  the  City  Council  and  enacted, 
ordinarily  without  change,  as  any  other  municipal  ordi- 
nance. 

Municipal  revenue  was  supplied  in  the  main  by  the  levy 
of  a  direct  property  tax,  the  maximum  rate  of  which  was 
changed  in  1818  from  one  and  a  third  per  cent,  to  "  such 
amount  as  shall  be  thought  necessary  for  the  public  or  city 
purposes,"  and  the  actual  rate  of  which  was  determined  by 
the  Ways  and  Means  Committee.  With  the  growth  of  the 
city  and  the  increase  in  municipal  expenditure,  larger  re- 
course was  necessarily  had  to  direct  taxation  as  a  source 
of  municipal  revenue.  Instead  of  utilizing  for  this  purpose 
the  original  "  Direct  Levy  "  ("  direct  tax  "),  the  fixture  of 
the  rate  of  which  had  been  placed  entirely  within  the  power 
of  the  corporation  by  the  act  of  181 8  above  noted,  specific 
authority  was  obtained  from  the  General  Assembly,  ordi- 
narily in  connection  with  the  act  empowering  the  exercise 
of  the  particular  function,  for  the  annual  levy  of  a  special 

*  See  below,  pp.  196-197.        ^  Ordinance  of  April  3,  1826,  No.  3. 

•  Ordinance  of  March  12,  1840. 


THE   FINANCES   OF   BALTIMORE   CITY,    1817-1856         99 

rate  to  an  amount  adequate  to  defray  the  total  expendi- 
ture involved  in  each  particular  case.  Between  181 7  and 
1856,  five  such  special  rates  were  annually  imposed,  in  addi- 
tion to  the  Direct  Levy,  and  the  Highway  and  Bridge  Levy, 
employed  in  lieu  of  the  Direct  Levy  for  the  taxation  of  the 
thinly  settled  outlying  districts  of  the  city.  These  special 
rates  were:  Court  Levy,  Poor  Levy,  School  Levy,  Levy  for 
County  Expenditures  for  City  Purposes,  and  Internal  Im- 
provements Levy. 

The  explanation  of  this  method  of  special  levies,  long  a 
feature  of  the  municipal  budget,  is  probably  to  be  found  in 
two  circumstances:  (i)  the  influence  of  the  "rate  system" 
of  the  English  municipal  corporations,  (2)  the  practical  cir- 
cumstance that  the  "  Direct  Tax "  could  be  levied  only 
within  certain  prescribed  "  limits  of  direct  taxation,"  where- 
as the  special  levies  authorized  by  distinct  acts  of  the  state 
legislature  could  be  imposed  upon  the  aggregate  taxable 
basis.^  It  is  probable  that  the  special  levies  were  originally 
precisely  adjusted  by  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  of 
the  City  Council  to  the  estimate  of  anticipated  expenditures 
submitted  by  the  respective  municipal  departments,  and 
that  the  funds  so  provided  were  designed  exclusively  for  the 
respective  purposes  for  which  they  had  been  levied.  In 
actual  practice  the  rates  although  authorized  by  distinct 
ordinances  were  levied  collectively  and  the  proceeds  cov- 
ered into  the  municipal  treasury  in  aggregate.  Certain  mu- 
nicipal departments,  notably  the  Commissioners  of  Public 
Schools,  repeatedly  asserted  their  right  to  the  entire  pro- 
ceeds of  their  respective  rates  and  inclined  to  regard  the 
annual  appropriation  of  the  City  Council  as  a  mere  credit 
to  this  account.  But  this  claim  was  never  admitted,  and 
before  1856  the  use  of  special  tax  levies  may  be  said  to 
have  become  a  mere  budgetary  form. 

*  See  below,  p.  146. 


CHAPTER  II 

MTTNICIPAl  EXPENDITUHE. 

The  growth  of  municipal  expenditure  in  the  period  from 
1817  to  1856  was  continuous  although  irregular.  The 
rapid  increase  in  the  years  following  the  War  of  1812  cul- 
minated in  1817,  and  was  succeeded  by  a  decade  of  normal 
development.  The  policy  of  municipal  aid  to  works  of  in- 
ternal improvement,  inaugurated  in  the  closing  years  of  the 
third  decade,  was  accompanied  by  increased  expenditure  in 
all  branches  of  municipal  service,  continuing  progressively 
until  the  dawn  of  the  modern  era  of  municipal  activity. 

From  1817  to  1835,  street  paving  and  repair,  watching 
and  lighting  (the  cost  of  which  remained  undifferentiated), 
harbor  improvement,  public  schools,  interest  on  the  funded 
debt  and  administrative  costs  were  the  important  occasions 
of  local  expenditure.  After  1835,  interest  on  the  funded 
debt  became  the  dominant  item  and  formed  from  one-half 
to  one-third  of  the  ordinary  net  annual  outlay.  Expendi- 
ture for  watching  and  lighting  and  for  public  schools  in- 
creased rapidly,  and  the  annual  disbursement  for  judi- 
cial purposes,  charities  and  corrections  and  administra- 
tion, more  gradually.  The  cost  of  harbor  improvement, 
fire  protection  and  sanitation  underwent  little  change,  while 
that  of  street  paving  and  street  cleaning  declined  relatively.* 

Streets  and  Roadways. 

The  general  improvement  and  maintenance  of  the  city 
roadway,  including  the  paving  and  repair  of  streets  and 
the  construction  of  bridges  and  sewers,  remained  until  1820 
vested  in  the  board  of  three   "  City  Commissioners  and 

^  See  Appendix  D. 
(100) 


THE   FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    1817-1856       lOI 

Commissioners  of  Health,"  described  above/  In  1820 
occurred  a  natural  differentiation  and  reassociation.  The 
ordinance  of  1809  appointing  the  joint  board  was  repealed, 
the  Commissioners  of  Health  were  continued  in  separate 
existence,  and  the  City  Commissioners  were  merged  with 
the  existent  board  of  Port  Wardens  in  a  new  board  of  three 
persons,  styled  "  City  Commissioners  and  Wardens  of  the 
Port  of  Baltimore."  Warrants  or  other  documents  issuing 
from  the  new  body  bore  the  title,  Wardens'  Office,  or  City 
Commissioners'  Office,  as  the  case  required.'  The  dual 
character  of  this  board  was  clearly  recognized  in  the  gen- 
eral re-enactment  of  municipal  ordinances,  which  took 
place  in  1826  and  in  1838.' 

Not  until  1850  was  any  change  made  in  this  anomalous 
exercise  of  distinct  functions  by  a  single  board  acting  in 
dual  capacity.  In  1849  the  board  of  City  Commissioners 
was  displaced  by  a  single  City  Commissioner  and  two  sub- 
ordinate Assistant  City  Commissioners  ;*  but  these  func- 
tionaries were  at  once  constituted  a  board  of  Port  Wardens, 
and  vested  with  all  the  powers  possessed  by  their  predeces- 
sors." Finally  in  1850  the  distinct  office  of  Port  Warden 
was  created  and  the  City  Commissioner  was  relieved  of 
duties  relating  to  the  care  of  the  harbor  and  wharves  of  the 
city.' 

Street  Paving  and  Repair.  The  re-enacting  ordinance  of 
1826  provided  that  all  paving  should  be  performed  under 

^  Page  56.  *  Ordinance  of  February  2,  1820. 

*  Ordinances  of  April  8,  1826;  May  22,  1838,  No.  47.  In  1827 
the  board  was  required  to  submit  to  the  City  Council  annually 
thereafter  separate  reports  of  its  proceedings,  as  a  board  of  City 
Commissioners  and  as  a  board  of  Port  Wardens,  with  fiscal  ab- 
stracts of  each  department  separately  signed  (Ordinance  of  April 
2,  1827).  In  1838  provision  was  made  that  "  the  City  Commission- 
ers shall,  ex  officio,  be  Port  Wardens  "  (Ordinance  of  May  22,  1838, 
No.  8). 

*  Ordinance  of  February  15,  1849,  No.  3. 

*  Ordinance  of  April  25,  1849,  No.  48. 

*  Ordinance  of  March  8,  1850.  After  1851  instead  of  the  two 
Assistant  City  Commissioners  authorized,  the  subordinate  force 
consisted   of   one  Assistant   City   Commissioner  and  clerical   aid. 


102  THE    FINANCIAL    HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

the  superintendence  of  the  City  Commissioners  by  con- 
tract, after  pubHc  advertisement  and  award  to  the  lowest 
bidder.  This  clause  was  incorporated  in  all  subsequent 
municipal  codes,  and  the  contract  system  was  essentially 
the  method  employed  by  the  City  Commissioners  for  new 
paving/  It  was  however  neither  the  method  now  described 
by  the  term,  contract  system,  nor  what  is  understood  as  the 
modern  day-labor  system,  i.  e.  where  the  municipality  as- 
sumes direct  control  of  the  work  and  employs  day  labor. 
The  actual  practice  was  to  invite  bids  and  to  make  awards 
for  detailed  services — supply  of  materials,  wages  of  labor- 
ers, and  hire  of  carts  and  horses.  Not  until  1855  were  con- 
tracts awarded  for  paving  according  to  completed  work,  the 
unit  being  the  square  foot.  A  saving  of  at  least  one-third 
in  the  cost  of  the  work  was  effected,  it  was  stated,  by  this 
change.* 

The  cost  of  initial  paving  continued  to  be  defrayed  by 
the  levy  of  a  special  assessment  upon  abutting  property,  as 
described  above,*  supplemented  by  occasional  special  appro- 
priations. When  municipal  property  abutted  upon  a  street 
about  to  be  paved,  a  corresponding  assessment  was  levied 
upon  and  paid  by  the  city.  By  an  extension  of  the  same 
principle,  the  entire  cost  of  paving  street  intersections  or 
"  cross  streets  "  continued  a  municipal  charge.* 

A  characteristic  feature  of  street  maintenance  during  the 
period  here  considered  was  the  increased  cost  of  street  re- 
pair, an  outlay  borne  entirely  by  the  city  treasury.  It  was 
essentially  a  compulsory  expenditure.  Urban  growth  and 
local  traffic  played  havoc  with  the  crude  paving  of  local 
streets,  and  the  City  Commissioners  were  throughout  en- 
gaged in  a  constant  and  barely  successful  struggle  to  pre- 
vent the  leading  thoroughfares  from  becoming  impassable. 

^Ordinances  of  April  8,  1826,  sect.  19;  April  28,  1830. 
*  Report  of  City  Commissioner,  January  i,  1856. 
'  Page  80. 

*Cf.  Ordinance  of  February  16,  1832,  No.  8;  Resolution  of  March 
27,  184s,  No.  41. 


THE    FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    1817-1856       IO3 

Despite  larger  appropriations  the  necessity  far  outran  the 
relief,  and  at  best  a  policy  of  patch-work  was  pursued. 

For  a  number  of  years  the  cost  of  repaying,  as  distin- 
guished from  repairing,  paved  streets  continued  to  be  de- 
frayed, as  in  the  case  of  initial  paving,  by  a  special  assess- 
ment upon  abutting  owners.  With  rapid  municipal  devel- 
opment and  the  consequent  need  of  street  improvement, 
the  municipal  appropriations  in  aid  of  the  sums  so  levied — 
from  the  first  appreciable  in  amount — grew  in  frequency 
and  in  importance.  This  practice  crystallized  in  April,  1833, 
in  the  adoption  by  the  corporation  of  a  resolution  providing 
that  upon  the  receipt  of  a  petition  from  the  proprietors  of 
abutting  property  for  the  repaving  of  any  particular  street, 
the  City  Commissioners  should  ascertain  the  cost  of  such 
repaving,  exclusive  of  cross-streets,  and  give  public  notice 
that  the  improvement  would  be  undertaken  under  the  su- 
pervision of  the  City  Commissioners,  as  soon  as  the  owners 
affected  should  deposit  with  the  city  a  sum  equal  to  two- 
thirds  of  the  expenditure  involved.  The  remaining  third 
and  the  cost  of  repaving  cross-streets  were  appropriated 
from  out  the  city  treasury.^ 

Although  not  specifically  provided,  this  resolution  was 
construed  as  requiring  the  application  of  all  the  property 
owners  affected.  This  unanimous  consent  could  rarely  be 
obtained,  and  then  only  with  much  exertion  and  difficulty. 
In  1834  through  the  efforts  of  Mayor  Jesse  Hunt,  the 
General  Assembly  authorized  the  corporation  to  repave  and 
recurb  any  street  whenever  the  owners  of  two-thirds  of  the 
abutting  property  had  made  application  therefor.  Lease- 
holders for  ninety-nine  years  or  more  and  mortgagees  in 
possession  were  construed  as  owners.*  This  grant  was  im- 
mediately accepted  by  the  corporation,  and  the  Mayor  was 
directed  to  refer  all  applications,  made  in  proper  form,  to 
the  City  Commissioners,  who  thereupon  levied  two-thirds 

*  Resolution  of  April  24,  1833,  No.  69. 

* "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1833,  ch.  40;  Mayor's  Message  of  Janu- 
ary 6,  1834. 


104  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

of  the  aggregate  expenditure  upon  the  abutting  property- 
owners  in  the  usual  manner  of  a  special  assessment  for 
street  paving,^  With  a  view  to  encouraging  the  further 
repaying  of  streets,  the  corporation  in  1854  sought  authority 
to  reduce  the  requisite  condition  from  the  application  of 
the  owners  of  two-thirds  of  the  abutting  property  to  the 
owners  of  a  major  part,  but  without  success.' 

The  aggregate  expenditure  for  street  paving  and  repair 
thus  consisted,  in  addition  to  the  administrative  expenses 
of  the  City  Commissioner's  office,  of  the  cost  of  paving 
cross-streets,  of  the  repair  of  paved  streets,  of  the  city's 
contribution  of  one-third  to  the  cost  of  repaying,  and  of 
occasional  special  appropriations.  To  these  should  be 
added  minor  items,  such  as  the  cost  of  paving  and  repay- 
ing in  front  of  city  property,  the  repair  of  unpaved  streets, 
and  the  supply  of  flag  and  stepping  stones.  Estimates  of 
the  amounts  required  for  each  of  these  several  purposes 
were  annually  submitted  by  the  City  Commissioner  to  the 
City  Register,  and  by  him  incorporated  in  his  general  esti- 
mate of  receipts  and  expenditures  for  the  ensuing  year.  In 
the  annual  appropriation  bill,  specific  appropriations  were 
made  for  each  of  the  purposes  named,  subject  to  the  order 
of  the  City  Commissioner  for  the  amount  actually  ex- 
pended; any  balance  of  a  particular  appropriation  over  the 
corresponding  expenditure  remained  in  the  city  treasury. 

In  actual  practice,  however,  estimates  of  the  City  Com- 
missioner were  materially  cut  down  by  the  City  Council, 
and  the  sums  appropriated  were  considerably  less  than  the 
several  amounts  required.  In  some  cases  in  face  of  an  in- 
evitable expenditure,  no  appropriation  whatever  was  made. 
An  unauthorized  deficit  was  thus  created  and  carried  for- 
ward in  increasing  amount  from  year  to  year  despite  the 
protests  of  successive  Mayors  and  City  Commissioners  for 
larger  appropriations  and  regular  discharge  of  liabilities. 

^  Ordinance  of  April   19,  1834,  No.  26;  re-enacted  in  Ordinance 
of  February  20,  1835,  No.  7. 
*  Ordinance  of  March  4,  1854,  No.  27. 


THE    FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    1817-1856       IO5 

The  ordinary  form  of  an  appropriation  for  paving  or  re- 
paving  was,  "  including  bills  rendered,  and  orders  unpaid." 
In  some  cases  the  standing  indebtedness  was  actually  more 
than  the  new  appropriation.  Thus  the  appropriation  made 
by  the  City  Council  for  the  repair  of  paved  streets  in  1853 
was  some  three  thousand  dollars  less  than  the  amount  due 
by  the  city  at  the  beginning  of  the  year  for  that  purpose/ 

Compelled  to  choose  between  an  utter  neglect  of  streets, 
for  the  most  part  in  deplorable  condition,  and  an  accumula- 
tion of  a  departmental  floating  debt,  the  City  Commission- 
er, with  the  sanction  of  the  Mayor,  ordinarily  pursued  the 
latter  policy.  In  consequence,  at  the  close  of  the  period 
here  considered,  an  indebtedness  of  upwards  of  $60,000 
had  been  created  on  "account  of  street  repair  and  cross- 
street  repaving  alone.  Payment  for  contract  work  was  thus 
subject  to  indefinite  delay,  and  its  cost  was  proportionately 
heightened. 

Sewers.  By  successive  re-enactment  the  City  Commis- 
sioners remained  vested  with  authority  "  for  mending,  mak- 
ing, or  repairing  of  sewers  within  the  city." '  This  power 
was  manifestly  unavailing  in  default  of  appropriations  by 
the  City  Council.  Dependence  continued  to  be  had  entirely 
upon  surface  drainage,  and  no  attempt  was  made  to  pro- 
ject anything  approaching  a  general  sewerage  system." 

Appropriations  of  moderate  amount  were  made  from 
time  to  time  for  the  construction  and  extension  of  under- 
ground drains  or  storm-water  sewers.  The  trivial  nature 
of  such  expenditures  during  the  early  part  of  the  period  is 
seen  in  a  resolution  of  March,  1828,  that  the  cost  of  con- 
structing a  sewer  on  Pratt  Street,  not  to  exceed  one  hun- 
dred and  ninety-five  dollars,  should  be  taken  out  of  the 
appropriation  for  the  removal  of  nuisances!  The  entire  cost 

^  Report  of  City  Commissioner,  January  2,  1854. 

*  Ordinance  of  April  8,  1826. 

* "  Sanitary  Condition  of  Baltimore,"  by  James  Wynne,  M.  D. ; 
extracted  from  the  First  Report  of  the  Committee  on  Public  Hygiene 
of  the  American  Medical  Association,  and  reprinted  in  "  Municipal 
Reports  "  of  Baltimore  for  1849. 


I06  THE    FINANCIAL    HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

of  such  work  was  ordinarily  defrayed  from  out  the  city 
treasury.  Occasionally  the  special  assessment  was  em- 
ployed/ A  small  sum  was  also  annually  appropriated  for 
the  repair  of  sewers,  subject  to  disbursement  by  the  City 
Commissioners.  As  in  the  case  of  street  paving,  the  sum 
available  was  rarely  adequate  for  the  needs  of  the  Commis- 
sioners in  this  direction,  and  their  accounts  presented  a 
chronic  indebtedness,  with  a  consequent  mischievous  delay 
in  the  discharge  of  incurred  obligations. 

Bridges.  Specific  appropriations  of  moderate  amount 
were  made  from  time  to  time  to  the  City  Commissioners  for 
the  construction  and  repair  of  bridges,  ordinarily  with  the 
provision  that  power  should  be  exercised  subject  to  the 
approbation  of  the  Mayor, 

Appropriations  thus  authorized  were  commonly  made 
from  out  current  revenues.  Somewhat  exceptional  was  tVie 
procedure  in  March,  1832,  when  an  appropriation  was  made 
for  building  a  certain  bridge,  provided  that  designated  indi- 
viduals would  lend  the  corporation  a  similar  amount  to  be 
devoted  to  the  same  purpose;^  and  again  in  April  of  the 
same  year,  when  the  construction  of  a  stone  bridge  was 
authorized  and  the  Commissioners  of  Finance  were  di- 
rected to  borrow  funds  for  that  purpose,  to  be  repaid  after 
1845.*  Extraordinary  provision  for  bridge  construction 
was  at  an  early  period  supplemented  by  an  annual  appro- 
priation of  small  amount  for  bridge  repair,  expended  in  the 
discretion  of  the  City  Commissioners. 

The  first  measures  of  importance  towards  providing  the 
city  with  adequate  bridges  were  taken  at  the  very  close  of 
the  period  here  considered.  In  June,  1855,  the  City  Com- 
missioner was  by  resolution  directed  to  submit  different 
proposals  for  building  iron  bridges  across  Jones'  Falls  to 
three  persons  designated  by  the  Mayor,  and  thereafter  to 
contract  for  the  construction  of  the  bridges  according  to 

*  Ordinance  of  March  16,  1821. 

'  Ordinance  of  March  23,  1832,  No.  20. 

*  Resolution  of  April  28,  1832,  No.  i. 


THE    FINANCES    OF    BALTIMORE    CITY,    1817-1856       IO7 

the  plans  selected.  The  cost  of  the  work  was  to  be  defrayed 
from  out  the  levy  for  1856/  By  the  close  of  the  year,  three 
such  bridges  were  in  process  of  construction  and  a  con- 
siderable obligation  had  been  incurred." 

Street  Reconstruction. 

General  provision  for  the  extension  and  reconstruction 
of  streets  was  made  in  the  important  "  Act  relating  to  the 
City  of  Baltimore  "  passed  at  the  legislative  session  of  181 7. 
Nine  commissioners  were  therein  appointed  to  cause  to  be 
surveyed  "  all  such  streets,  lanes  and  alleys,  as  they  shall 
deem  proper  and  convenient,"  and  to  return  plats  thereof 
to  the  City  Register  and  to  the  Clerk  of  Baltimore  County 
Court.*  A  majority  of  the  commissioners  were  made  com- 
petent to  exercise  all  the  powers  of  the  board,  and  vacancies 
arising  therein  were  filled  by  the  Mayor  and  the  presidents 
of  the  two  Branches  of  the  City  Council.  Any  reconstruc- 
tion included  in  the  plan  of  the  commissioners  could  be  un- 
dertaken by  the  corporation  upon  the  written  application 
of  the  proprietors  of  not  less  than  two-thirds  of  the  property 
liable  to  damage.  In  1835  the  same  action  was  authorized 
upon  the  application  of  the  proprietors  of  a  major  part  of 
the  property  to  be  taken.* 

The  street  reconstructions  recommended  by  the  commis- 
sion of  1818  were  slowly  introduced.  This  delay  worked 
some  hardship  upon  the  owners  of  property  lying  in  the 
path  of  proposed  alterations.  Improvements  could  be  made 
and  buildings  erected  only  at  the  risk  of  having  them  de- 
stroyed without  compensation  to  the  owner,  while  on  the 
other  hand  the  property  was  subject  to  ordinary  taxation. 
Relief  was  afforded  in  1833  by  a  statute  of  the  General  As- 

*  Resolution  of  June  2,  1855,  No.  135. 

'  Report  of  City  Commissioner,  January  i,  1856. 

*  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1817,  ch.  148.  The  commissioners  were 
further  authorized  to  reserve  parcels  of  ground  for  public  purposes, 
to  be  purchased  at  the  expense  of  the  city,  and  to  revise  the  names 
of  streets. 

*  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1834,  ch.  277. 


I08  THE   FINANCIAL    HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

sembly  empowering  the  corporation  to  pass  ordinances 
fixing  a  time  limit  for  effecting  alterations  recommended 
by  the  commission;  thereafter  such  improvements  could 
only  be  made  subject  to  full  payment  for  all  damages  in- 
flicted/ 

The  mode  of  procedure  in  the  case  of  street  reconstruc- 
tion continued  essentially  that  in  vogue  in  the  period  before 
1817,  The  City  Commissioners,  or  more  commonly,  a 
board  of  specially  appointed  commissioners,  five  in  number, 
and  either  designated  or  thereafter  appointed  by  the  Mayor, 
were  directed  to  survey  and  lay  out  the  street  as  specified, 
to  cause  a  plat  to  be  made  and  to  be  returned  under  their 
seal  to  the  office  of  the  City  Register.'  Despite  the  general 
power  conferred  by  the  statute  of  18 17,  authority  to  open 
and  extend  particular  streets  continued  to  be  sought  and 
obtained  in  special  acts  of  the  legislature.  Such  special 
acts  were  often  made  conditional  upon  the  assent  of  the 
Mayor  and  City  Council  and  ordinarily  authorized  some 
modification  of  customary  procedure." 

Some  doubt  having  been  expressed  as  to  the  power  of  the 
corporation  to  establish  the  grades  of  unpaved  streets,  spe- 
cific authority  was  conferred  by  the  General  Assembly  in 
1836,  and  promptly  embodied  in  a  municipal  ordinance.* 
It  provided  that  whenever  the  owners  of  a  major  part  of 
the  ground  on  any  thoroughfare  laid  out  in  the  survey  of 
181 7-18  should  make  written  application  for  its  regrading, 
the  Mayor  should  appoint  two  disinterested  persons  who  in 
conjunction  with  the  City  Commissioners  should  consti- 
tute a  board  of  commissioners  to  perform  the  alteration  in 

^ "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1832,  ch.  207.  Frequent  use  was  made  of 
the  privilege  thus  conferred;  see  Ordinances  of  March  23  and  25, 
1835,  Nos.  13.  14;  April  23,  1839,  No.  50. 

*  For  typical  illustrations:  "Laws  of  Maryland,"  1826,  ch.  91; 
1827,  ch.  21;  1831,  ch.  257,  292;  1832,  ch.  214,  268;  1836,  ch.  182; 
Ordinance  of  April  26,  1836,  No.  39. 

'"Laws  of  Maryland,"  1817,  ch.  168;  1820,  ch.  56;  1821,  ch.  45; 
1823,  ch.  136;  1827,  ch.  58. 

* "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1835,  ch.  390;  Ordinance  of  June  16,  1836, 
No.  46. 


THE    FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    1817-I856       IO9 

the  manner  prescribed  by  existing  ordinances.  In  1839  the 
powers  vested  in  the  corporation  relative  to  street  recon- 
struction were  again  specifically  reaffirmed  by  the  General 
Assembly/ 

Serious  loss  to  both  city  treasury  and  to  property  owners 
resulted  from  the  appointment,  as  commissioners  or  asses- 
sors for  each  reconstruction,  of  persons  with  no  special 
qualification  or  experience  for  a  work  requiring  expert  skill. 
Attention  was  directed  to  this  evil  by  Mayor  Samuel  Brady 
in  his  message  of  January  4,  1841,  and  a  remedy  pro- 
posed in  the  form  of  a  permanent  board  of  commission- 
ers for  opening  streets.  Two  months  later — doubtless  as  a 
direct  result  of  this  recommendation — an  ordinance  was 
passed  establishing  the  essential  features  of  the  later 
system  of  street  reconstruction  in  Baltimore.*  Provision 
was  made  for  the  annual  appointment  in  usual  form  of  three 
"  Commissioners  for  Opening  Streets  "  with  power  to  ap- 
point necessary  assistants  and  subordinates.  Whenever 
directed  by  ordinance  to  proceed  with  any  street  recon- 
struction, these  commissioners  were  required  to  effect  the 
improvement  and  to  assess  benefits  for  all  costs  incurred 
and  to  award  damages  as  hereinafter  described.* 

The  gross  expenditure,  including  both  the  amount  of 
damages  awarded  and  the  actual  cost  involved  in  effecting 
the  reconstruction,  continued  to  be  defrayed  by  a  special 
assessment  upon  the  property  benefited.  After  1837  spe- 
cific provision  was  often  made  in  ordinances  authorizing 
any  street  reconstruction,  "  that  in  no  event  shall  the  Mayor 
and  City  Council  of  Baltimore  be  responsible  for  any  ex- 
penses, costs,  or  charges  relating  to  or  connected  with  the 
opening  of  said  street."  * 

^  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1838,  ch.  226. 

*  Ordinance  of  March  9,  1841,  No.  10. 
'  See  page  164,  below. 

*  Ordinances  of  April  12,  1837,  No.  40;  March  6,  1843,  No.  11; 
April  15,  1845,  No.  20. 


no  the  financial  history  of  baltimore 

Street  Cleaning. 

With  the  exception  of  a  brief  and  relatively  unimportant 
interval,  the  function  of  street  cleaning  and  scavenging  re- 
mained under  the  nominal  control  of  the  Commissioners  of 
Health.  The  detailed  administration  and  organization  of 
the  service,  on  the  other  hand,  varied  repeatedly  and  was 
characterized  by  a  weak  and  vacillating  municipal  policy. 

The  two  Superintendents  of  Streets  and  Pumps  appointed 
in  1807 '  were  in  18 17  increased  to  four — one  for  each  of  the 
corresponding  districts  into  which  the  city  was  divided  by 
the  City  Commissioners.'  Like  their  predecessors,  the  new 
Superintendents  were  charged  with  the  care  of  streets  and 
with  the  repair  of  wells  and  pumps,  exercising  the  latter 
function  under  the  direction  of  the  City  Commissioners.  A 
really  important  change  occurred  in  1827,  when  the  Com- 
missioners of  Health  were  empowered  to  substitute,  with 
the  approbation  of  the  Mayor,  the  day-labor  for  the  contract 
system  in  street  cleaning.'  The  change  appears  to  have 
been  promptly  made  and  to  have  continued  in  force  for  a 
number  of  years. 

A  radically  new  policy  was  inaugurated  in  1839  when  the 
offices  of  Superintendents  of  Streets  were  abolished  and  the 
duties  pertaining  thereto  were  vested  in  a  corresponding 
number  of  "  city  bailiffs  and  police  officers."  *  This  was 
supplemented  in  1844  by  the  substitution  in  turn  of  the  con- 
tract system  for  the  day-labor  system,  and  the  virtual  trans- 
fer of  the  control  of  the  department  from  the  Commission- 
ers of  Health  to  the  City  Commissioners."  At  the  same 
time  the  special  police  officers  acting  as  Superintendents  of 
Streets  were  discharged,  and  their  duties  were  thereafter 
performed  by  the  regular  police  force  of  the  city,  under  the 

*  See  above,  page  61. 

'  Ordinance  of  March  14,  1817.    The  number  of  Superintendents 
was  subsequently  increased  to  five  and  later  to  six. 

*  Ordinance  of  April  29,  1827. 

*  Ordinance  of  March  9,  1839,  No.  6. 

'  Ordinance  of  March  i,  1844,  No.  5;  Resolution  of  January  23, 
1844,  No.  I. 


THE    FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    1817-1856       III 

supervision  of  the  Mayor  and  City  Commissioners/  The 
innovation  was  short  Hved.  In  1845  ^^^  Board  of  Health 
again  assumed  control  of  the  work;  the  city  was  divided, 
as  before,  into  districts,  in  each  of  which  a  Superintendent 
of  Streets  and  Pumps  exercised  detailed  supervision/  The 
contract  system  however  continued  in  force  practically  until 
1853,  when  the  day-labor  system  under  the  direction  of  the 
district  Superintendents  of  Streets  and  Pumps  was  again 
introduced." 

The  results  of  this  shifting,  hap-hazard  policy  can  be 
easily  surmised.  Despite  considerable  annual  appropria- 
tions, together  with  the  proceeds  from  the  sale  of  street 
refuse,  which  in  1850  had  become  "  the  most  valuable  part 
of  the  remuneration,"  the  condition  of  Baltimore  streets 
during  the  greater  part  of  the  period  here  considered  ap- 
pears to  have  been  a  menace  to  both  municipal  health  and 
public  comfort.*    The  final  adoption  in  1853  o^  the  day- 

^  Ordinance  of  March  i,  1844,  No.  6;  Resolution  of  April  13, 
1844,  No.  122. 

*  Ordinances  of  April  25,  1845,  No.  35;  May  2,  1846,  No.  64; 
April  14,  1847,  No.  27;  1848,  No.  3;  April  2,  1853,  No.  26. 

'  Ordinance  of  April  2,  1853,  No.  26. 

*  Evidence  of  this  is  contained  in  Dr.  James  Wynne's  report  on 
"the  Sanitary  Condition  of  Baltimore,"  to  which  reference  has 
already  been  made:  "  There  is  no  fixed  time  for  cleaning  the  streets, 
and  they  receive  attention  in  proportion  to  their  tendency  to  ac- 
cumulate filth,  but  never  more  than  twice  a  week,  more  frequently 
once  in  two  weeks.  The  narrow  lanes,  inhabited  by  the  poor, 
although  more  liable  to  become  filthy,  receive  less  attention  than 
the  more  public  thoroughfares,  and  are  always  in  a  more  dirty 
condition.  It  may  be  proper  to  remark  that  the  refuse  of  the 
streets  is  not  collected  together  by  brooms,  but  is  gathered  into 
heaps  by  hoes  and  carted  away.  The  most  effectual  scavenger  is  a 
copious  shower,  which,  from  the  rapid  descent  of  the  streets, 
sweeps  away  with  it  an  increditable  amount  of  street  washings. 
These  showers  are  very  frequent  during  the  summer  months,  and 
are  always  hailed  by  me  as  a  great  blessing,  on  account  of  the 
manner  in  which  they  purify  the  streets.  There  are  no  regular 
depots  for  the  street  manure,  but  each  contractor  deposits  the 
manure  from  his  district  on  such  vacant  lots  as  he  can  obtain  in 
the  outskirts  of  the  town,  until  disposed  of  to  the  surrounding 
country  people,  or  carried  away  in  boats  "  (Municipal  Reports  for 
1850,  p.  210). 


112  THE   FINANCIAL   HISTORY   OF   BALTIMORE 

labor  system  in  place  of  the  contract  system — a  substitution 
curiously  described  as  "  a  novel  experiment " — appears  to 
have  been  attended  with  a  measure  of  improvement.  On 
the  other  hand  it  introduced,  or  at  least  emphasized,  certain 
mischievous  elements  in  municipal  administration,  the  full 
evils  of  which  were  realized  in  a  subsequent  period  of  mu- 
nicipal history.^ 

Watching  and  Lighting. 

The  tendency  toward  the  differentiation  of  the  functions 
of  watching  and  lighting,  perceptible  before  1817,  pro- 
ceeded rapidly  thereafter.  This  was  hastened  by  the  dis- 
placement of  oil  by  gas  as  a  public  illuminant,  and  by 
reliance  upon  a  private  corporation  for  public  lighting. 
Strangely  enough,  no  change  was  made  in  the  practice  of  a 
joint  appropriation  for  the  two  services,  and  it  is  impossible 
to  determine  their  respective  costs,  either  from  the  annual 
appropriation  bills  or  from  the  Registers'  summaries. 

Lighting.  The  contract  made  in  181 7  with  the  Baltimore 
Gas  Light  Company  for  lighting  the  streets  of  the  city  was 
renewed  in  18 18.''  The  Mayor  was  therein  authorized  to 
contract  for  lighting  "  such  squares,  streets,  lanes  and  alleys 
in  the  city  as  he  may  deem  fit  and  advisable,"  at  a  price  not 
exceeding  $12.50  for  each  lamp  per  annum.  This  contract 
continued  in  force  for  a  year,  and  was  renewed  with  slight 
modifications  annually  thereafter.  In  efficiency  the  light- 
ing of  the  city  underwent  but  slight  relative  improvement. 
Municipal  appropriations  were  inadequate  as  compared 
with  the  high  charge  for  gas,  and  the  policy  of  the  Gas 
Company  with  respect  to  the  extension  of  mains  appears  to 
have  been  narrow  and  short-sighted.  In  1850  the  lighting 
of  the  city  was  described  as  of  "  a  most  defective  character," 
the  prolific  source  of  disorder  and  crime,  and  the  occasion 
of  great  public  inconvenience."     Some  advance  was  made  in 

*  "  Report  of  the  Board  of  Health,"  December  31,  1853. 
"  Ordinance  of  March  27,  1818.     Cf.  above,  page  62. 

*  Mayor's  Communications  of  November,  1850;  January  19,  1852. 


THE    FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    1817-1856       II3 

the  form  of  a  more  favorable  contract  with  the  Gas  Com- 
pany in  1851/  but  the  situation  in  the  following  year  was 
not  inspiring:  "  the  lamps,  in  a  great  majority  of  the  streets, 
are  so  badly  arranged,  and  at  such  a  distance  from  each 
other,  as  to  be  little  better  than  a  mere  apology  for  such 
light  as  the  public  wants  and  safety  requires."  ^ 

The  first  of  a  series  of  identical  errors  in  municipal  policy 
with  respect  to  gas  supply  was  taken  in  185 1  in  the  grant  of 
the  use  of  streets  to  a  new  association  (Thomas  J.  Clare  & 
Co.),  the  head  of  which  was  "  in  possession  of  a  patent  right 
for  the  manufacture  of  water  gas,  which  he  believes  to  be 
superior  in  quality  and  cheaper  in  price  than  the  gas  now 
used  in  lighting  the  city."  *  More  fortunate  than  in  many 
subsequent  experiences  the  city  seems  to  have  escaped  the 
normal  results  of  its  reckless  grant,  by  the  apparent  fail- 
ure of  the  project  at  an  initial  stage;  but  the  episode  is 
of  interest  as  an  early  local  instance  of  mistaken  policy  with 
respect  to  industries  of  service. 

In  1852  Mayor  John  H.  T.  Jerome  strongly  urged  an  in- 
creased appropriation  for  public  lighting,  and  recommended 
the  enactment  of  legislation  compelling  the  Gas  Company 
to  supply  gas  wherever  required  by  the  city.  Should  this 
effort  fail,  or  the  gas  corporation  prove  recalcitrant,  the  mu- 
nicipal ownership  and  operation  of  the  gas  supply  were 
recommended.  This  forcible  suggestion  of  an  efiEicient 
executive  is  worthy  of  citation  in  full:  "  If  nothing  can  be 
accomplished  Hy  legislation  or  negotiation  with  the  present 
Gas  Company,  to  have  the  city  brilliantly  and  economically 
lighted,  why,  then  I  say,  at  once  establish  a  City  Gas  Works 
under  your  own  control  and  direction;  but,  perhaps  the 
great  objection  to  such  an  undertaking  will  be  the  heavy 
expense  necessarily  incurred.  To  this  I  answer,  will  not 
the  profits  to  the  corporation  be  as  great  as  to  an  inde- 

'  Resolution  of  May  9,  1851. 

^  Mayor's  Communication  of  January  19,  1852. 

*  Ordinance  of  May  29,  1851,  No.  55. 

I  I  ■         '    • 


114  THE    FINANCIAL    HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

pendent  company?  Most  assuredly  it  will.  Therefore  it 
is  reasonable  to  infer,  that  instead  of  an  expense,  it  will  in 
the  course  of  a  few  years,  be  a  source  of  great  revenue  to 
the  corporation,  whilst  the  benefits  to  the  citizens  of  having 
the  city  properly  lighted  will  be  beyond  estimation."  ' 

Police.  The  police  force  of  the  city  continued  a  com- 
posite of  two  practically  independent  bodies,  (i)  the  night 
watch  acting  as  a  night  patrol,  and  (2)  the  city  bailiffs  as 
a  day  constabulary  force.  Despite  urban  expansion,  the  for- 
mer body  increased  slowly  and  inadequately  in  numbers. 
Similarly  the  inefficiency  of  the  force  of  bailifTs  as  a  day 
police  grew  more  and  more  pronounced;  until  at  the  very 
close  of  the  period  was  foreshadowed  that  reconstruction 
and  unification  of  the  system  which  distinguished  the  suc- 
ceeding period  of  municipal  development. 

(Night  Watch).  The  formal  organization  of  the  night 
watch  remained  much  as  established  in  1816.  The  city  was 
divided  into  districts,  and  captains,  lieutenants  and  watch- 
men were  appointed  for  each  district.  Three  justices  of  the 
peace  were  annually  selected,  as  before,  to  receive  the  report 
of  the  watcli.^  In  1835  the  system  was  officially  described 
as  "  efficient  and  well  organized  " ;  but  the  employment  of 
additional  watchmen  was  recommended  as  necessitated  by 
the  extension  of  the  city."     The  increased  appropriations 

^  This  recommendation  was  probably  sug'gested  by  Philadelphia's 
experience  in  municipal  ownership  of  gas  supply.  In  the  "  Sanitary 
Report  on  Baltimore  "  of  1850,  to  which  reference  has  already  been 
made,  Dr.  Wynne  stated  that  the  price  of  gas  in  Philadelphia  was 
"  believed  to  be  the  lowest  price  demanded  in  any  town  in  the 
United  States,"  and  that  the  use  of  gas  in  private  dwellings  was 
much  more  common  there  than  in  other  places.  With  reference 
to  conditions  in  Baltimore,  he  added:  "It  becomes  a  question  of 
importance  to  the  companies  themselves,  as  well  as  to  the  con- 
sumers, whether  large  profits  might  not  be  derived  from  a  reduc- 
tion in  price  and  a  consequent  extension  in  its  use.  If  a  city  can 
supply  gas  and  water  at  a  less  rate  than  the  incorporated  com- 
panies constituted  for  that  purpose,  its  obligations  in  assuming 
these  important  functions  become  obvious  and  imperious. 

'  Cf.  Ordinances  of  February  20,  1821;  March  9,  1826. 

*  Mayor's  Communication  of  January  5,  1835. 


THE   FINANCES    OF    BALTIMORE    CITY,    1817-1856       II 5 

required  for  this  purpose  were  not  forthcoming  and  in  1844 
the  Mayor  was  requested  "  to  reorganize  the  night  watch 
of  the  city  in  such  a  manner  as  he  may  deem  best  for  the 
protection  of  the  persons  and  property  of  the  citizens,  and 
that  he  be  authorized  for  that  purpose  to  employ  such  addi- 
tional watchmen  as  he  may  deem  necessary."  ^  No  action 
appears  to  have  been  taken  under  the  terms  of  this  resolu- 
tion, and  in  1850  the  existing  system  was  extended  rather 
than  reconstructed." 

(Day  Police).  Increase  in  the  number  of  city  bailiflfs 
brought  little  improvement  in  efficiency.  In  1835  the  ser- 
vice was  described  by  Mayor  Jesse  Hunt  as  "  lamentably 
defective,"  and  the  propriety  of  the  term  will  be  appre- 
ciated when  it  is  understood  that  the  aggregate  compen- 
sation of  the  force  was  $750  per  annum,  and  that  this 
amount  was  distributed  exclusively  among  those  bailiffs  in 
attendance  upon  the  city  markets,  leaving  the  remainder  of 
the  force  entirely  unpaid,  save  by  the  receipt  of  fees  for 
judicial  services  and  one-half  of  fines  and  penalties  collected 
upon  their  information.' 

In  1838  the  number  of  bailiffs  was  increased  to  thirty-six, 
and  the  body  formally  organized  as  a  "  city  police,"  with 
the  high  constable  acting  as  chief  of  police.  One-third  of 
the  force  received  fixed  salaries ;  the  remainder,  termed  "  ex- 
tra city  bailiffs,"  were  compensated  by  the  Mayor  from  out 
the  proceeds  of  fines  accruing  from  the  violation  of  city 
ordinances.*  The  appointment  of  additional  bailiffs  was 
again  authorized  in  1839,  1841,  1848,  and  1850.  These 
moderate .  additions  proved  however  utterly  unavailing  in 
face  of  the  growing  turbulence  of  the  city,"  and  a  radical 
reorganization  of  the  system  became  imperative.  In  1853 
the  necessary  authority  for  the  reconstruction  of  the  police 

*  Resolution  of  March  24,  1844,  No.  70. 

*  Ordinance  of  April  5,  1850. 

*  Mayor's  Communication  of  January  5,  1835. 

*  Ordinance  of  May  23,  1838,  No.  45. 

*  Cf.  Mayor's  Communication  of  January,  1856,  p.  18.  j 


Il6  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

department  was  obtained  from  the  General  Assembly  of 
Maryland/  and  in  1856  detailed  recommendations  were 
made  to  this  end  by  Mayor  Samuel  Hinks."  The  nature  of 
these  measures  can  be  best  described  in  conjunction  with 
the  actual  reorganization  of  the  department.* 

Fire  Protection. 

Fire  protection  in  Baltimore  continued  to  be  afforded  by 
volunteer  companies,  receiving  annual  appropriations  from 
out  the  city  treasury  for  the  maintenance  and  repair  of 
equipment,  and  after  1834  formally  associated  in  an  incor- 
porated body.  The  unnecessary  multiplication  of  compa- 
nies early  threatened  the  efficiency  of  service  and  unduly 
increased  its  cost  In  1823  the  City  Council  declared  by 
resolution  that  the  organization  of  additional  companies 
was  extravagant  and  inexpedient.* 

Some  measure  of  united  action  had  been  adopted  by  the 
various  volunteer  fire  companies  as  early  as  1787;  but  not 
until  183 1  was  a  regular  association  evolved  in  the  form  of 
the  "  Baltimore  Association  of  Firemen."  This  body  was 
reorganized  three  years  later  and  incorporated  by  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  as  the  "  Baltimore  United  Fire  Department." 
Each  company  was  represented  by  seven  delegates  in  the 
Department,  and  by  one  member  in  a  standing  committee 
or  board  of  select  delegates.  The  Department  was  author- 
ized to  provide  for  the  better  regulation  of  companies  in 
service,  for  the  settlement  of  disputes  and  for  the  creation 
of  a  relief  fund  for  injured  firemen  or  their  families." 

The  rivalry  and  jealousy  of  the  several  companies,  which 
for  many  years  had  made  of  each  fire  alarm  the  occasion  of 
disturbance  and  sometimes  of  riot,  was  not  appreciably  re- 
duced by  this  formal  act  of  association.     In  1838  the  legis- 

*  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1853,  ch.  46. 

*  Mayor's  Communication  of  January,  1856,  p.  18. 
'  See  below,  page  223. 

*  Resolution  of  February  8,  1823. 

"  Scharf,  "  History  of  Baltimore  City  and  County,"  pp.  240-241. 


THE   FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    1817-1856       II7 

lature  of  Maryland  attempted  to  correct  the  growing  evil 
by  imposing  heavy  penalties  upon  persons  convicted  of  de- 
stroying or  injuring  fire  apparatus,  or  assaulting  firemen 
while  engaged  in  the  performance  of  duty.  The  standing 
committee  of  the  Department  and  the  presidents  of  the  sev- 
eral companies  were  further  vested  with  the  power  of  jus- 
tices of  the  peace  while  in  active  service.^  In  the  same 
year  the  Mayor  was  empowered  to  withhold  authorized 
appropriations  from  any  company,  of  which  the  members 
had  engaged  in  riot  or  disorder  in  connection  with  any  fire." 

In  1842  the  city  was  divided  into  three  fire  districts,  in 
each  of  which  a  Chief  Marshal  was  appointed  by  the  dele- 
gates of  the  United  Fire  Department,  to  have  entire  control 
of  the  companies  present  at  any  fire  within  the  district 
In  1848  the  Mayor  was  empowered  at  his  discretion  to  sus- 
pend or  entirely  withhold  annual  or  special  appropriations 
from  any  particular  company.  The  city  was  divided  anew 
into  four  districts,  and  the  proper  ward  of  each  company 
was  made  the  district  in  which  its  engine  house  was  situated, 
unless  otherwise  prescribed  by  the  Mayor.' 

The  characteristic  features  attending  the  operations  of  the 
fire  department  of  Baltimore  continued  to  be  disorder  and 
turbulence.  In  Mayor  Samuel  Hink's  annual  communica- 
tion of  January,  1856 — by  all  odds  the  best  document  pre- 

*  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1837,  ch.  190. 

*  Resolution  of  April  10,  1838;  similarly,  of  February  13,  1840,  No. 
14.  This  clause  ordinarily  appeared  in  subsequent  appropriation 
bills. 

*  Ordinance  of  March  23,  1848,  No.  28.  The  discretionary  power 
of  the  Mayor  was  further  enlarged  in  the  following  year;  see  Ordi- 
nance of  April  13,  1849,  No.  33. 

At  about  the  same  time  the  interesting  suggestion  was  made  that 
the  municipality  should  undertake  to  insure  private  property  within 
the  corporate  limits  against  loss  by  fire.  It  was  asserted  that  the 
revenues  so  accruing  would  be  "  amply  sufficient,  after  discharging 
the  ordinary  losses  by  fire,  to  defray  the  whole  expense  of  the  in- 
ternal government  of  the  city,  and  pay  a  considerable  part  of  the 
annual  interest  growing  out  of  the  improvident  legislation  of  the 
state,  and  ultimately  relieve  the  citizens  from  the  payment  of  tax." 
Resolution  of  March  27,  1846,  No.  89. 


Il8  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

pared  by  a  Baltimore  executive  up  to  that  time — important 
recommendations  were  made  relative  to  the  reorganization 
of  the  department.  These  proposals  are  directly  associated 
with  the  changes  introduced  in  1858,  and  can  be  most  in- 
telligently considered  in  connection  therewith." 

In  addition  to  the  annual  appropriations  for  maintenance, 
extraordinary  grants  were  made  from  time  to  time,  either 
from  out  the  city  treasury  or  by  the  issue  of  city  stock,  to 
specific  companies  for  the  purchase  of  apparatus  and  the 
erection  of  engine  houses.  The  property  in  possession  of 
the  companies  appears  to  have  been  held  in  outright  owner- 
ship even  when  purchased  by  special  municipal  appropria- 
tion. In  some  cases  at  least,  explicit  provision  was  made 
that  property  so  obtained  should  be  deeded  to  the  corpora- 
tion, and  that  any  rents  accruing  therefrom  should  be  paid 
annually  into  the  city  treasury. 

Water  Supply. 

The  water  supply  of  the  city  was  derived  to  an  increasing 
extent  from  the  service  of  the  Baltimore  Water  Company. 
This  corporation  enjoyed  a  practically  unqualified  franchise, 
having  full  power  to  convey  water  under  any  of  the  streets 
of  the  city,  and  to  open  the  street-bed  as  often  as  might  be 
necessary  for  that  purpose.  In  return  therefor  the  Com- 
pany was  required  merely  to  restore  torn-up  streets  to  their 
original  condition,  to  replace  defective  piping,  and  to  main- 
tain fire-plugs  in  good  condition — the  last  service  at  the  ex- 
pense of  the  city/ 

The  inherent  defects  of  water  supply  by  private  agency 
gradually  became  pronounced.  The  cost  of  service  was 
high;  the  source  of  supply  unsuited  for  an  expanding  city, 
and,  most  serious  of  all,  a  short-sighted  policy  of  extending 
service  only  into  immediately  remunerative  districts  seems 

^  See  below,  page  228. 

"  Ordinances  of  January  28,  1826;  cf.  ordinance  of  April  3,  1843, 
No.  25. 


THE    FINANCES    OF    BALTIMORE    CITY,    1817-1856       IIQ 

to  have  been  pursued  throughout.  Thus  in  1850,  mains 
were  laid  in  but  one  half  of  the  populated  portion  of  the 
city,  and  not  more  than  five  thousand  houses  in  all  were 
supplied/  Efforts  in  the  direction  of  municipalization  were 
made  in  1830,  in  1833,  and  in  1835;^  but  no  agreement  as  to 
the  proper  valuation  of  the  existing  plant  could  be  reached. 
For  the  next  fifteen  years  public  sentiment  in  Baltimore 
may  be  said  to  have  steadily  crystallized  in  favor  of  munici- 
pal ownership  and  operation  of  water  supply,  if  necessary 
at  the  expense  of  entirely  independent  construction. 

The  first  of  the  series  of  steps  ultimately  resulting  in  mu- 
nicipal ownership  was  the  appointment  by  the  City  Council 
in  1852  of  a  special  committee  "  to  enquire  into  the  pro- 
priety of  supplying  the  city  with  water."  '  In  1853  a  formal 
effort  was  made  by  the  city  to  secure  specific  enabling  legis- 
lation from  the  General  Assembly.*  This  led  to  the  pas- 
sage of  an  act  authorizing  the  corporate  purchase  or  con- 
demnation of  any  lands  and  water  rights,  including  the 
property  and  plant  of  the  Water  Company,  and  the  issue 
for  this  purpose  of  municipal  stock  to  an  amount  not  ex- 
ceeding $2,000,000."  Although  not  required  by  statutory 
provision,  the  City  Council  determined  to  submit  to  a  popu- 
lar referendum  the  expediency  of  exercising  the  power  thus 
conferred."  An  overwhelming  majority  in  favor  of  munici- 
pal purchase  resulted.^  The  Commissioners  of  Finance  had 
already  been  instructed  to  negotiate  with  the  Water  Com- 
pany for  the  purchase  of  the  existing  plant,'  and  in  the 
summer  of  1854  the  transaction  was  completed.     In  return 

*  Cf.  "  Sanitary  Report  of  Baltimore,"  p.  214. 

"  For  details  of  these,  see  Scharf.  "  History  of  Baltimore  City  and 
County,"  pp.  216-217;  also  Resolution  of  April  13,  1835. 
'  Resolution  of  May  11,  1852,  No.  97. 

*  Resolution  of  April  12,  1852,  No.  loi. 
"  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1852,  ch.  376. 

•  Resolution  of  October  5,  1853,  No.  252. 

^9727  votes  were  cast  in  favor  of  the  undertaking  and  304  votes 
against  it;  see  Scharf,  "  History  of  Baltimore  City  and  County," 
p.  218. 

•  Resolution  of  October  5,  1853.  No.  254. 


I20  THE   FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

for  an  absolute  conveyance  of  all  property  and  privileges, 
the  city  issued  to  the  Water  Company  six  per  cent,  stock, 
redeemable  on  or  after  January  i,  1875,  to  the  amount  of 
$1,350,000.  The  annual  revenues  accruing  from  the  mu- 
nicipal operation  of  the  water  works  were  specifically 
pledged  for  the  payment  of  interest  on  the  stock  so  issued.^ 

A  municipal  water  department  was  organized  early  in 
1855  by  the  creation  of  a  Water  Board,  composed  of  a  presi- 
dent, a  first  assistant  commissioner,  and  a  second  assistant 
commissioner,  appointed  for  a  term  of  three  years,  but  with 
tenures  so  arranged  as  to  permit  the  retirement  of  one  mem- 
ber each  year.  The  Water  Board  was  vested  with  practi- 
cally absolute  control  of  the  department,  including  the  ad- 
ministration, extension,  and  maintenance  of  the  supply. 
Expenditures  were  met  by  requisitions  upon  the  City  Regis- 
ter to  the  amount  of  the  appropriations  made  by  the  City 
Council,  and  funds  received  were  deposited  with  the  Reg- 
ister to  the  credit  of  the  department.^ 

In  sections  of  the  city  not  penetrated  by  the  mains  of  the 
Water  Company,  dependence  was  necessarily  had  as  before 
upon  wells  and  public  springs.  New  pumps  were  erected 
upon  the  petition  of  any  eight  property  owners  in  the  par- 
ticular locality,  and  the  expenditure  was  defrayed  by  a  spe- 
cial assessment  upon  property  presumably  benefited.'  Once 
erected,  such  pumps  might  be  transferred  to  the  city  and 
maintained  in  repair  at  the  public  expense.*  Public  springs 
were  located  in  various  sections  of  the  city,  often  surround- 
ed by  a  grass  plot  or  small  parked  area,  and  maintained 
from  out  the  city  treasury. 

Health. 
Upon  the  dissolution  of  the  joint  board  of  City  Commis- 
sioners and  Commissioners  of  Health  in  1820,  as  described 

^  Ordinance  of  July  29,  1854,  No.  80. 
'^  Ordinance  of  December  29,  1854,  No.  i. 

* "  Sanitary  Report  of  Baltimore  "  in  Municipal  Reports  for  1850, 
p.  207. 
*  Resolutions  of  March  21,  1832,  No.  53;  January  24,  1839,  No.  4. 


THE    FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    1817-1856       121 

above/  the  sanitary  control  of  the  city  «was  vested  in  a 
Board  of  Health,  composed  of  three  Commissioners  and  a 
Consulting  Physician,  appointed,  as  all  other  municipal 
officers,  by  the  Mayor  and  confirmed  by  the  Council.  The 
Mayor  was  directed  to  divide  the  city  into  three  districts, 
assigning  a  Commissioner  to  each  district.  The  functions  of 
the  Board  consisted  in  the  general  sanitary  care  of  the  city, 
including  the  superintendence  of  street-cleaning  and  the  en- 
forcement of  sanitary  ordinances ; '  while  all  quarantine 
regulations  remained  vested  in  a  Health  Officer,  a  prac- 
tising physician,  annually  appointed  by  the  Mayor  and  act- 
ing only  in  informal  association  with  the  Board  of  Health.' 
In  1839  the  office  of  Consulting  Physician  was  abolished, 
and  provision  made  that  one  of  the  three  Commissioners  of 
Health  should  be  a  physician  of  experience,  should  perform 
all  the  duties  of  the  Consulting  Physician  as  president  of 
the  board  ex-oMcio,  and  should  receive  a  slight  extra  com- 
pensation therefor."  With  the  change  came  inefficiency  in 
service,  and  in  1841  Mayor  Samuel  Brady  voiced  the  com- 
plaint that  "  The  present  organization  of  the  Health  De- 
partment, from  all  the  information  furnished  me,  has  failed 
to  answer  the  expectations  of  those  who  were  friendly  to 
the  change."  Accordingly  a  return  to  the  earlier  organiza- 
tion of  the  department  was  recommended,  and  at  once 
made."  In  1844  one  of  the  waves  of  mistaken  economy  that 
periodically  swept  over  the  city  government  of  Baltimore 
again  entirely  abolished  the  Board  of  Health  and  transferred 
its  functions  to  the  City  Commissioners,  vesting  the  duties 
of  the  Consulting  Physician  in  the  Health  Officer  of  the 
city.*  It  was  impossible  for  this  concentration  to  endure 
for  any  length  of  time.  The  City  Commissioners  were  then 
already,  in  addition  to  their  own  specific  functions,  exercis- 

^  Page  loi. 

*  Ordinances  of  February  10  and  29,  1820. 

*  Ordinance  of  May  25,  1838,  No.  12. 

*  Ordinance  of  February  15,  1839,  No.  3. 
'  Ordinance  of  February  10,  1841,  No.  3. 

*  Ordinance  of  March  I,  1844,  No.  6. 


122  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

ing  the  duties  of  Port  Wardens.  To  these  were  now  added 
a  series  of  more  or  less  independent  functions,  and  the 
anomalous  spectacle  was  presented  of  a  single  board  acting 
in  a  triple  capacity,  and  presenting  a  distinct  report  for  each 
class  of  activities.^ 

Accordingly  in  1845  the  appointment  of  an  independent 
Commissioner  of  Health  and  a  City  Physician  was  again 
authorized,  and  these  two  officials  together  with  the  Health 
Officer  were  reconstituted  a  Board  of  Health,  of  which  the 
City  Physician  was  president  ex-oMcio.^  An  Assistant  to 
the  Commissioner  of  Health  was  appointed  in  1846,  and 
soon  became  practically,  although  apparently  without 
specific  authority,  a  member  of  the  Board  of  Health.' 

In  1846  the  Commissioners  of  Finance  were  empowered 
to  sell  the  structure  theretofore  used  for  the  reception  of 
small-pox  patients,  and  an  appropriation  was  made  for  the 
erection  of  a  new  building.*  Upon  the  completion  of  this 
"  Small  Pox  Hospital "  in  1847,  i^s  control  was  vested  in 
the  Board  of  Health  under  the  direct  charge  of  a  Resident 
Physician."  In  the  following  year  the  name  of  the  institu- 
tion was  changed  to  the  "  Marine  Hospital,"  and  its  man- 
agement entrusted  to  a  Marine  Hospital  Physician,  in  whom 
were  merged  the  duties  of  both  the  Health  Officer  and  of 
the  Resident  Physician.'  Thereafter  the  Physcian  to  the 
Marine  Hospital  figured  as  practically  a  fourth  member  of 
the  Board  of  Health. 

Unwholesome  sanitary  conditions  and  location  on  the 
seaboard  combined  to  render  Baltimore  constantly  exposed 
and  periodically  subject  to  epidemic  small-pox.  Succes- 
sive visitations,  threatened  and  actual,  led  to  the  develop- 
ment of  a  supplementary  sanitary  force,  designed  primarily 

^  See  Municipal  Reports  for  1844. 

"  Ordinance  of  May  2,  1845,  No.  39. 

'  See  Report  of  Board  of  Health,  December  31,  1847. 

*  Resolution  of  May  25,  1846,  No.  155. 
■*  Ordinance  of  May  27,  1847,  No.  48. 

•  Ordinance  of  May  20,  1849,  No.  8;  Report  of  Board  of  Health, 
January  i,  1850. 


THE    FINANCES    OF    BALTIMORE    CITY,    1817-1856       I23 

as  vaccine  physicians,  but  exercising  other  functions.  A 
permanent  vaccine  corps  was  created  in  1846  by  empower- 
ing the  Mayor  and  Council  to  appoint  annually  one  vaccine 
physician  for  each  ward,  who  should  also  act  as  "  Health 
Warden  "  within  his  respective  district/  The  duties  of  this 
additional  obligation  were  defined  in  1853  ^s  the  detailed 
inspection  of  sanitary  conditions  within  respective  wards, 
and  the  report  of  existing  cases  of  nuisance  and  contagious 
disease  to  the  Board  of  Health/ 

Markets. 

All  ordinances  relating  to  local  markets  were  codified  in 
1826  in  a  detailed  measure  "  to  regulate  the  several  markets 
in  the  City  of  Baltimore."  The  limits  of  the  five  city  mark- 
ets were  defined  and  the  annual  appointment  of  a  clerk  for 
€ach  market  and  a  chief  clerk  for  each  of  the  two  more  im- 
portant was  authorized."  In  1834  a  sixth  market  was  es- 
tablished and  authority  obtained  from  the  legislature  to  levy 
a  direct  tax  to  defray  the  cost  of  acquiring  the  necessary 
site  by  condemnation.*  Provision  was  made  for  two  smaller 
markets  in  1835  and  in  1846  respectively.' 

The  only  regular  expenditure  of  importance  connected 
with  the  maintenance  of  the  municipal  markets  was  the 
salary  list  of  the  clerks.  Outlays  for  repair  were  neces- 
sary from  time  to  time  but  were  inconsiderable  in  amount. 
The  periodic  extension  of  market  places  and  the  recon- 
struction of  market  houses  entailed  somewhat  larger  ex- 
penditures. 

Wharves  and  Harbor. 

The  board  of  Port  Wardens  continued  in  independent 
existence  until  1820,  in  which  year  it  was  merged,  as  has 
been  noted,  with  the  City  Commissioners  in  a  new  joint 

*  Ordinance  of  February  17,  1846,  No.  3. 
^Ordinance  of  March  11,  1853,  No.  16. 

'  Ordinance  of  April  7,  1826. 

*  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1833,  ch.  35. 

'  Resolutions  of  April  16,  1835,  No.  64;  February  17,  1846,  No.  30. 


124  THE   FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

board  of  three  persons,  styled  City  Commissioners  and 
Wardens  of  the  Port  of  Bahimore  and  vested  with  all  the 
powers  of  both  bodies.  The  organization  and  functions  of 
the  board  remained  in  general  unchanged,  and  in  1826  and 
again  in  1838,  all  provisions  relating  to  local  wharves  and 
harbor  were  codified  in  detailed  ordinances.  These  pro- 
vided for  the  annual  appointment  of  three  Port  Wardens, 
who  should  be  the  same  persons  as  were  appointed  City 
Commissioners,  and  of  two  Harbor  Masters,  each  of  whom 
should  exercise  exclusive  authority  on  one  side  of  Jones' 
Falls.  The  Port  Wardens  were  directed  to  deepen  a  chan- 
nel within  designated  limits,  to  cause  all  public  wharves  to 
be  rebuilt  or  repaired  when  necessary,  to  erect  substantial 
wharves  or  abutments  at  the  end  of  all  streets  leading  to 
the  water  front,  and  to  compel  the  maintenance  in  repair 
of  all  private  wharves;  in  short,  to  exercise  general  superin- 
tendence over  local  shipping.  The  Harbor  Masters  exer- 
cised subordinate  powers  in  reference  to  the  care  of  city 
wharves,  the  mooring  of  vessels,  the  collection  of  fines  and 
wharfage  dues.^  Wharfage  receipts  were  appropriated  as 
before  to  the  improvement  of  the  particular  wharves  and 
docks  where  collected,  and  were  expended  under  the  direc- 
tion of  the  Port  Wardens  with  the  approbation  of  the 
Mayor.  The  City  Commissioners  continued  to  act  as  Port 
Wardens  until  1850  when  a  single  distinct  Port  Warden 
was  appointed,  and  the  general  charge  of  the  harbor  and 
wharves  of  the  city  was  vested  in  him.* 

The  annual  expenditures  for  the  repair  of  public  wharves 
were  relatively  small  and  fixed  in  amount.  Specific  appro- 
priations were  made  from  time  to  time  for  the  construction 
of  additional  wharves,  either  by  the  Port  Wardens  inde- 
pendently or  subject  to  the  approbation  of  the  Mayor.'    A 

^  Ordinances  of  February  27  and  April  3,  1826;  May  22,  1838, 
No.  8. 

"  Ordinance  of  March  8,  1850. 

'  Resolutions  of  June  12,  1818;  March  27,  1828;  April  2,  1835,  No. 
46;  Ordinance  of  February  26,  1822.  Ordinance  of  May  20,  1853, 
No.  42. 


THE    FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    1817-1856       I25 

larger  expenditure  was  entailed  by  the  necessity  for  straight- 
ening and  walling  in  Jones'  Falls,  the  city  water  course. 

Annual  appropriations  for  deepening  and  preserving  the 
harbor  continued  to  be  made  from  out  the  proceeds  of  ton- 
nage and  auctioneers'  dues.  In  1828  the  proceeds  of  the 
local  tax  on  auction  receipts  was  diverted  from  the  city  to 
the  state  treasury,  as  hereinafter  described;  but  $20,000  of 
the  revenues  accruing  therefrom  was  annually  appropriated 
by  the  General  Assembly  for  the  improvement  of  the  harbor 
of  Baltimore.^  This  appropriation  was  ordinarily  antici- 
pated by  the  Port  Wardens  drawing  upon  the  City  Regis- 
ter.* Occasional  appropriations  were  also  made  by  the 
federal  government* 

Despite  these  efforts,  serious  loss  and  inconvenience  were 
suffered  by  the  commercial  interests  of  the  city  from  the  in- 
ability of  vessels  of  heavy  draught  to  reach  its  wharves.  In- 
telligent agitation  for  the  construction  of  a  ship  channel  in 
the  Patapsco  River  resulted  in  the  passage  by  the  General 
Assembly  in  1852  of  an  act  empowering  the  city  to  issue 
stock  to  the  amount  of  $50,000  "  for  removing  the  obstruc- 
tion in  the  bed  of  the  Patapsco  River  beyond  the  limits  of 
direct  taxation,"  and  authorizing  the  levy  of  an  additional 
tax  to  defray  interest  and  to  provide  principal  therefor.*  A 
special  board  of  commissioners,  composed  of  the  Mayor, 
the  Port  Warden  and  seven  designated  persons,  was 
promptly  appointed  for  exercising  the  authority  thus  con- 
ferred." 

Courts. 

A  distinct  criminal  court  for  Baltimore  City  was  erected 
in  1 81 7  under  the  name  of  the  Baltimore  City  Court.  All 
salaries  and  expenditures  were  to  be  ascertained  by  the 
Court,  and  levied  by  the  Levy  Court  of  Baltimore  County 

^"Laws  of  Maryland,"  1827,  ch.  iii;  see  below,  p.  156. 

'  Ordinance  of  April  6,  1829;  Resolution  of  March  15,  1832,  No.  44. 

'  Mayor's  Communication  of  January  i,  1838. 

*  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1852,  ch.  296. 

°  Ordinance  of  June  18,  1852,  No.  59. 


126  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

Upon  the  assessable  property  of  the  city  and  precincts  of 
Baltimore/  A  year  later  the  levy  of  this  "  court  tax  "  was 
transferred  to  the  Mayor  and  City  Council  of  Baltimore.' 

Jurisdiction  over  civil  cases  in  Baltimore  City  continued 
to  be  exercised  by  the  Baltimore  County  Court,  the  main- 
tenance of  which  remained  a  joint  charge  upon  the  city  and 
the  county.  At  first  the  city's  share  seems  to  have  been 
levied  directly  by  the  Levy  Court  of  Baltimore  County. 
After  the  administration  of  the  county  was  vested  in  the 
County  Commissioners  in  1828,  the  County  Court  ascer- 
tained and  certified  to  the  Mayor  and  City  Council  the 
share  of  the  city,  "having  regard  to  the  quantity  of  busi- 
ness transacted  therein  for  the  said  county  and  city,"  re- 
spectively. This  amount,  together  with  certain  other  semi- 
judicial  charges — coroners'  fees,  removal  of  criminal  trials, 
maintenance  of  court-house — was  then  levied  as  a  direct 
tax  ("  certain  expenses  levy  ")  upon  the  city.' 

Two  justices  for  each  ward  of  the  city  were  appointed  in 
1 819  by  the  governor  and  council  of  the  state..  They  re- 
ceived specified  fees  and  were  styled  "  Justices  of  the  Peace 
of  the  State  of  Maryland  in  and  for  the  City  of  Baltimore."  * 
In  1822  the  total  number  of  justices  authorized  was  in- 
creased to  thirty-six,°  but  it  is  doubtful  whether  the  entire 
number  was  actually  appointed.  In  1847  it  was  proposed 
to  reduce  the  number  of  justices  to  sixteen,  to  be  appointed 
as  before  but  to  receive  fixed  salaries  from  out  the  municipal 
treasury,  into  which  in  turn  were  paid  all  fees.  The  city 
protested  vigorously  against  the  change  as  devolving  upon 
"  local  authorities  the  maintenance  of  judicial  functions, 
when  they  are  to  have  no  voice  in  the  appointment  of  judi- 
cial officers." "     Despite  this  protest  the  plan  was  adopted 

^ "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1816,  ch.  193,  227;  1817,  ch.  190. 
^  Ibid.,  1817,  ch.  195. 

'  See  below,  page  148.  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1827,  ch.  80,  167; 
Ordinances  of  March  25,  1829,  March  9,  1830,  April  25,  1831,  No.  32. 

*  Ibid.,  1818,  ch.  209. 

'^  Ibid.,  1821,  ch.  249;  supplemented  by  1824,  ch.  189. 

*  Resolution  of  February  23,  1848,  No.  18. 


THE    FINANCES    OF    BALTIMORE    CITY,    1817-1856       12/ 

by  the  General  Assembly/  and  in  the  same  year  the  appoint- 
ment of  four  additional  justices  was  authorized.' 

The  Maryland  Constitution  of  1851  definitely  incorporated 
the  courts  of  Baltimore  with  the  judiciary  of  the  state,  and 
reduced  the  city,  for  judicial  purposes,  to  a  mere  district  of 
Maryland.  The  new  courts  located  in  Baltimore  were  a 
Court  of  Common  Pleas,  a  Superior  Court,  a  Criminal 
Court — each  with  a  judge  and  clerk  elected  by  popular  vote 
but  paid  by  the  state.  An  Orphan's  Court  was  established, 
with  three  judges  elected  by  popular  vote  receiving  per 
diem  compensation  from  the  city.  The  legislature  was 
further  authorized  to  erect  at  its  pleasure  an  additional  city 
court,  which  power  was  exercised  in  1853  by  the  establish- 
ment of  a  Circuit  Court.'  Local  justices  of  the  peace  and 
constables  were  appointed  by  the  governor,  and  a  sheriff 
was  elected  by  the  voters  of  the  city.*  The  expenses  of  the 
courts,  exclusive  of  the  salaries  of  the  judges  and  the  clerks, 
were  defrayed  by  the  city.  Nominally  provided  by  the 
municipal  levies  for  "  court "  and  "  certain  expenses,"  the 
aggregate  sum  was  really  paid,  as  an  ordinary  municipal 
expenditure,  by  an  annual  appropriation  from  out  the  city 
treasury. 

Schools. 

As  early  as  1723,  public  provision  was  made  in  Mary- 
land for  the  support  of  county  and  parish  schools."  Not 
however  until  181 2  was  a  considerable  fund  made  available 
for  the  establishment  of  free  schools  throughout  the  state. 
This  was  done  by  requiring  the  banks  of  Maryland  to  make 
an  aggregate  payment  of  $20,000  per  annum — to  be  appor- 
tioned according  to  their  respective  capitals — in  return  for 

*  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1847,  ch.  77.  The  salary  of  a  justice  of  the 
peace  was  fixed  at  $1000  per  annum;  in  the  event,  however,  of  the 
aggregate  fees  paid  into  the  municipal  treasury  not  amounting  to 
$16,000,  an  equal  distribution  of  the  actual  receipts  was  made. 

^  Ibid.,  1847,  ch.  316.  *  Ibid.,  1853.  ch.  122. 

*  Constitution  of  1851,  Article  IV. 

'  Scharf,  "  History  of  Baltimore  City  and  County,"  p.  223. 


128  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

an  extension  of  their  charters  to  1835.  The  revenues  thus 
received  were  to  be  divided  equally  among  the  several 
counties  of  the  state,  and  to  be  utilized  exclusively  as  a  pub- 
lic school  fund/ 

In  1813  an  annual  tax  of  twenty  cents  on  every  hundred 
dollars  of  capital  stock,  payable  to  the  treasurer  of  the  Wes- 
tern Shore  of  Maryland,  was  substituted  for  the  fixed 
charge  upon  the  banks/  This  tax  was  to  go  into  effect  on 
January  i,  1815;  but  not  until  February,  1817,  were  nine 
Commissioners  of  the  School  Fund  appointed  for  each 
county  and  authorized  to  receive  and  expend  the  respec- 
tive sums  allotted/  In  1821  Commissioners  of  the  School 
Fund  for  Baltimore  City  were  appointed  distinct  from  those 
of  Baltimore  County.  The  share  of  the  fund  allotted  to  the 
county  appears  to  have  been  thereafter  divided  equally  be- 
tween city  and  county. 

In  1826  provision  was  made  by  the  General  Assembly 
for  the  establishment  of  a  distinct  system  of  public  schools  in 
Baltimore,  by  empowering  the  corporation  to  levy  addi- 
tional local  taxes  to  an  amount  necessary  for  their  estab- 
lishment and  support.*  A  year  later  the  statute  received 
the  requisite  assent  of  the  corporation,"  but  not  until  March, 
1828,  were  steps  taken  to  put  the  system  into  operation. 
The  two  branches  of  the  City  Council  elected  annually  in 
joint  convention  six  Commissioners  of  Public  Schools,  con- 
stituting a  School  Board  of  which  the  Mayor  was  president 
e.v-oMcio.  This  Board  was  directed  to  divide  the  city  into 
certain  districts,  in  each  of  which  a  school  was  to  be  estab- 
lished, and  to  make  all  necessary  provision  for  the  establish- 
ment, government  and  maintenance  of  the  schools.' 

^  The  provision  was  inserted  in  the  act  incorporating  the  Cum- 
berland Turnpike  Road  Company:  "Laws  of  Maryland/'  1812,  ch.  79, 

'"  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1813,  ch.  122.  '^  Ibid.,  1816,  ch.  246. 

*  Ibid.,  1825,  ch.  130.  "  Ordinance  of  January  17,  1827. 

"  The  number  of  school  commissioners  was  increased  to  nine  in 
1834,  to  thirteen  in  1837,  to  fourteen  in  1842,  and  to  twenty  in  1846 
— one  from  each  ward  of  the  city,  elected  by  the  two  Branches  of 
the  City  Council  in  joint  convention. 


THE    FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    1817-1856       I29 

The  School  Board  appointed  its  own  secretary  and  treas- 
urer, but  enjoyed  little  fiscal  independence.  With  the  an- 
nual report  to  the  City  Council,  an  account  of  the  expendi- 
tures of  the  Board  in  the  past  year  and  an  estimate  of  the 
funds  required  for  the  ensuing  year  were  submitted.  This 
estimate  influenced,  to  a  greater  or  less  degree,  the  City 
Council  in  fixing  the  rate  of  the  direct  "  school  levy,"  au- 
thorized in  1826  and  imposed  annually  for  the  support  of 
the  schools.  The  proceeds  of  this  rate  when  paid  into  the 
city  treasury  were  nominally  treated  as  a  "  public  school 
fund,"  subject  to  disbursement  by  the  Register  upon  the 
draft  of  the  president  of  the  School  Board,  countersigned 
by  the  Mayor.  It  was  common  for  the  Board  to  anticipate 
the  proceeds  of  the  school  tax  by  temporary  loans,  and  in 
some  cases  specific  provision  was  made  that  the  expendi- 
tures of  the  Board  should  not  exceed  the  fund  in  the  posses- 
sion of  the  Register  for  the  use  of  schools.^  Undrawn 
amounts,  however,  appear  to  have  been  covered  into  the 
general  municipal  balance  at  the  close  of  each  fiscal  year. 

The  public  schools  were  practically  free  to  the  children  of 
residents  of  Baltimore.  A  nominal  fee  of  one  dollar  per 
quarter  was  charged,  but  any  child  could  be  exempted  from 
payment  by  the  Board  of  School  Commissioners.''  Muni- 
cipal taxation  formed  the  most  important  item  in  the  main- 
tenance of  the  system.  After  1827  the  city  received 
the  distributive  share  of  the  school  fund  hitherto  appro- 
priated to  the  Commissioners  of  the  School  Fund  for  the 
City  of  Baltimore.*  This  sum  was  deposited  at  first  with 
the  Commissioners  of  Finance;  but  afterwards  was  drawn 
directly  by  the  City  Register,  and  placed  to  the  credit  of 
the  public  school  fund.  Of  less  importance  as  sources  of 
revenue  were  the  proceeds  of  intestacies  in  the  city  of  Balti- 

^  Ordinance  of  February  21,  1843,  No.  6. 
^  Ordinance  of  March  8,  1828. 
*  Ordinance  of  June  29,  1828. 
J 


130  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF    BALTIMORE 

more,  appropriated  in  1845  to  the  support  of  local  schools,' 
and  occasional  special  appropriations.'' 

Charities  and  Corrections. 

A  local  poor  relief  board  was  first  appointed  in  1818,  when 
the  Mayor  and  City  Council  were  directed  to  select  an- 
nually from  each  ward  of  the  city  one  "  sensible  and  dis- 
creet inhabitant "  as  Manager  of  the  Poor,  with  power  to 
commit  indigent  sick  and  defectives  to  the  county  alms- 
house. The  trustees  of  the  almshouse  were  instructed  to 
prepare  annually  a  separate  estimate  of  the  expenses  in- 
curred in  the  maintenance  of  city  inmates,  and  this  amount 
was  levied  on  the  property  of  the  city  in  the  same  manner 
as  the  charges  of  the  City  Court,"  and  the  proceeds  paid  to 
the  trustees  of  the  almshouse.*  In  1822  the  maintenance 
of  the  almshouse  was  transferred  to  a  corporate  body  styled 
"  The  Trustees  for  the  Poor  of  Baltimore  City  and  County," 
consisting  of  seven  persons,  of  whom  four  were  residents 
of  the  city  and  were  annually  appointed  by  the  Mayor 
and  Council,  and  three  were  residents  of  the  county  and 

^ "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1845,  ch.  129. 

*  The  interest  of  Maryland's  share  of  the  surplus  revenue  of  the 
United  States  was  appropriated  for  distribution  among  the  counties 
and  Baltimore  City,  in  the  same  proportion  as  the  school  fund  was 
then  distributed  ("  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1836,  ch.  220).  In  1838  this 
mode  of  distribution  was  changed.  One-half  of  the  interest  fund 
was  divided  among  the  counties  and  Baltimore  in  proportion  to  the 
white  population  of  each  as  determined  by  the  federal  census;  the 
other  half  was  divided  among  the  counties  and  the  city  in  equal 
parts.  Distributions  were  made  annually  at  the  same  time  as  the 
division  of  the  free  school  fund  ("Laws  of  Maryland,"  1837,  ch.  285). 
In  1840  the  whole  residue  of  the  surplus  revenue  and  of  the  inter- 
est received  thereon,  less  the  appropriation  to  the  school  fund  for 
the  current  year,  was  applied  to  the  payment  of  the  interest  upon 
the  state  debt.  Instead  thereof,  the  sum  of  $33,069.36  was  annually 
appropriated  to  the  school  fund  from  out  the  revenues  to  accrue 
after  June  30,  1840,  from  the  Baltimore  and  Washington  Railroad, 
to  be  distributed  as  the  previous  fund  ("  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1839, 
ch.  33). 

*  See  above,  page  125. 

*  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1818,  ch.  122. 


THE   FINANCES   OF   BALTIMORE   CITY,    1817-1856       I3I 

were  similarly  selected  by  the  Governor/  The  mode  of 
commitment  remained  unchanged  until  1854,  when  the 
judge  of  the  Criminal  Court  of  Baltimore  or  any  justice  of 
the  peace  was  authorized  to  commit  vagrants  and  paupers.' 
During  the  last  decade  of  the  period  here  considered,  the 
almshouse  appears  to  have  suffered  at  least  relative  deter- 
ioration in  condition  and  management.  Joint  ownership 
with  the  county  discouraged  that  expansion  of  the  institu- 
tion which  urban  growth  made  necessary.  The  energies  of 
the  Trustees  of  the  Poor  seem  to  have  been  absorbed  in 
the  struggle  to  maintain  the  institution  even  in  its  actual 
condition  with  the  tardy  and  insufficient  revenues  available, 
A  dissolution  of  joint  ownership  and  the  erection  of  a  larger 
municipal  building  was  urged  repeatedly. 

The  lease  of  the  city  hospital  to  private  hands,  as  de- 
scribed above,  was  confirmed  in  1821/  In  1827,  the  Mayor 
was  authorized  to  cede  to  the  State  of  Maryland,  through 
an  incorporated  board  ("  the  President  and  Board  of  Vis- 
itors of  the  Maryland  Hospital "),  the  city's  right  in  and 
title  to  the  hospital,  provided  that  the  state  guaranteed  the 
repayment  to  the  city  of  the  several  amounts  already  ex- 
pended in  the  purchase  and  construction  of  buildings,  such 
repayments  to  be  utilized  in  making  provision  for  a  hospital 
for  contagious  diseases.* 

Persons  convicted  of  criminal  oflfenses  were  committed 
as  before  to  the  jail  of  Baltimore  County.  In  1817  the 
judges  of  the  newly  created  Baltimore  County  Court  were 
directed  to  examine  the  jail  accounts,  and  to  ascertain  what 
portion  thereof,  as  determined  by  the  relative  number  of 
prisoners  from  Baltimore,  should  be  paid  by  the  city."  In 
the  following  year,  this  function  was  transferred  to  the  Levy 

^  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1822,  ch.  167. 

'Ibid.,  1854,  ch.  116. 

'  Ordinance  of  March  16,  1821. 

*  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1816,  ch.  156;  1826,  ch.  259.  Ordinance  of 
April  2,  1827.  Resolutions  of  February  23,  1827,  and  February  4, 
1828. 

'  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1817,  ch.  142. 


132  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

Court  of  Baltimore  County/  The  cost  of  all  repairs  was 
paid  in  equal  proportions  by  the  city  and  the  county, 
respectively/  In  1832  the  management  of  the  jail  was 
transferred  to  a  board  of  seven  persons,  annually  appointed 
and  commissioned  by  the  Governor  of  the  state,  of  whom 
four  were  required  to  be  residents  of  Baltimore  City  and 
three  of  Baltimore  County.  The  board  was  constituted  a 
body  corporate  by  the  name  of  "  The  Visitors  of  the  Jail  of 
Baltimore  City  and  County."  As  before,  one-half  of  all  ex- 
penditures for  repairs  and  improvements  and  a  proportion- 
ate share  of  the  cost  of  maintenance,  determined  by  the  rela- 
tive number  of  prisoners  from  the  city,  were  paid  from  out 
the  municipal  treasury.  The  Visitors  submitted  an  annual 
statement  of  receipts  and  expenditures  to  the  Mayor  and 
City  Council,  together  with  estimates  for  the  ensuing  year.' 
In  1839  the  appointment  of  the  city  members  of  the  Board 
of  Visitors  was  transferred  to  the  Mayor  and  City  Council, 
and  of  the  county  members  to  the  County  Commissioners. 
No  change  was  effected  in  the  powers  and  duties  of  the 
board." 

The  necessity  for  more  ample  accommodations  for  local 
delinquents  revived  the  project  of  separating  the  city's  and 
the  county's  joint  interest  in  the  institution."  This  separa- 
tion was  finally  consummated  in  November,  1853,  and 
thereafter  the  Baltimore  jail  was  a  distinctly  municipal  in- 
stitution, at  which  county  prisoners  were  received  subject 
to  specific  charges  for  maintenance.'  A  committee  of  the 
City  Council  had  already  reported  in  favor  of  building  a 
city  jail  upon  the  site  of  the  old  structure,  and  in  1851  an 
appropriation  was  made  for  this  purpose.^  Difference  of 
opinion  arose  as  to  the  precise  form  and  location  of  the 

'  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1818,  ch.  141. 

'  Ibid.,  1827,  ch.  167.  "  Ibid.,  1831,  ch.  58. 

*  Ibid.,  1838,  ch.  75;  see,  for  an  earlier  attempt  to  secure  this 
method  of  appointment,  Resolution  of  March  19,  1829. 

°  Resolution  of  April  18,  1849,  No.  103. 

*  Cf.  Report  of  the  Visitors  of  the  Jail,  1853. 
^  Ordinance  of  May  23,  1851,  No.  42. 


THE    FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    1817-1856       I33 

building,  and  not  until  1856  was  its  actual  construction  un- 
dertaken.^ 

In  1 83 1  the  General  Assembly  authorized  the  establish- 
ment in  Baltimore  of  a  "  house  of  refuge  "  for  juvenile  de- 
linquents, to  be  managed  by  an  incorporated  board  of 
twenty-four  managers,  of  whom  eight  were  appointed  by 
the  Governor  and  Council  of  Maryland,  eight  by  the  Mayor 
and  City  Council  of  Baltimore,  and  the  remaining  by  pri- 
vate subscribers.  Certain  state  funds  were  appropriated  to 
the  use  of  the  institution,  but  it  was  to  receive  no  direct 
municipal  aid.'  Probably  because  of  this  latter  reason,  the 
plan  proved  unsuccessful.  The  project  was  again  revived 
in  1845  ^•"d  remained  under  discussion  until  1849,  when  a 
number  of  philanthropic  citizens  reorganized  under  the  act 
of  incorporation  of  1831.  Place  was  given  upon  the  di- 
rectorate to  representatives  of  the  city  and  state,  from  both 
of  which  aid  was  expected.  The  city  at  once  appropriated 
a  definite  amount  together  with  the  proceeds  accruing  from 
the  sale  of  certain  municipal  property,"  A  site  was  pur- 
chased and  the  erection  of  a  building  commenced.  The 
legislature  however  refused  all  pecuniary  aid  and  in  1853 
entirely  severed  the  state's  connection  with  the  institution. 
Municipal  spirit  intervened  at  this  critical  juncture;  two  ad- 
ditional appropriations  were  made,  and  in  1855  the  first  in- 
mate was  admitted.* 

Parks  and  Squares, 

The  early  municipal  history  of  Baltimore  reveals  the 
characteristic  neglect  of  the  American  city  to  make  ade- 
quate provision  for  unbuilt  areas  in  residential  quarters  and 
for  extensive  pleasure  grounds  in  suburban  districts.     In 

^  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1852,  ch.  200;  Resolution  of  July  16,  1853, 
No.  214.  Also  Scharf,  "  History  of  Baltimore  City  and  County," 
p.  201. 

"  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1830,  ch.  64. 

*  Resolution  of  April  12,  1849,  No.  88. 

*  Scharf,  "  History  of  Baltimore  City  and  County,"  p.  826. 


134  THE   FINANCIAL   HISTORY   OF   BALTIMORE 

1827  a  prominent  citizen,  William  Patterson,  agreed  to 
present  to  the  city  two  adjoining  squares  of  ground,  con- 
taining five  or  six  acres,  in  the  eastern  section  of  the  city 
to  be  used  as  a  public  walk  or  park.  The  tract  was  accepted 
by  the  city  and  provision  made  for  its  enclosure  and  im- 
provement. This  gift  formed  the  nucleus  of  the  present 
Patterson  Park.^ 

A  further  nucleus  of  a  system  of  public  squares  in 
Baltimore  was  provided  in  1839  by  the  corporate  acquisi- 
tion of  a  small  area  in  the  northwestern  section  of  the  city 
(Franklin  Square).  The  tract  was  purchased  from  the 
owners  of  adjacent  property,  subject  to  the  condition  that 
the  purchase  price  should  be  credited  by  the  city  to  the 
account  of  the  special  assessment  levied  thereon  for  street 
paving.^  This  arrangement  was  never  carried  out,  and  in 
1844  provision  was  made  for  the  payment  of  the  specified 
amount  in  four  equal  installments,  whenever  a  designated 
number  of  buildings  should  be  erected  abutting  upon  or  ad- 
jacent to  the  square.'  Other  public  areas  were  acquired  in 
1846  (Union  Square)  and  in  1853  (Eutaw  Square),  by  gift; 
in  1852  (Federal  Hill)  and  in  1853  (Madison  Square)  by 
condemnation  and  purchase.*  Payment  for  Madison  Square 
was  made  in  six  annual  installments  from  out  the  current 
revenues  of  the  city.  The  cost  of  laying  out  and  condemn- 
ing a  public  square  on  Federal  Hill  was  defrayed  in  part 
by  the  levy  of  a  special  assessment  upon  property  owners 
to  the  amount  benefited.  Expenditures  for  improving  and 
maintaining  areas  thus  acquired  were  irregular  in  time  and 
for  the  most  part  inconsiderable  in  amount.  After  1853  ^^^ 
desirability  of  a  system  of  public  parks  became  generally 
recognized  and  public  sentiment  was  ripe  a  few  years  later 
for  prompt  adoption  of  the  sagacious  policy  proposed  by 
Mayor  Thomas  Swann. 

^  See  below,  page  246.  '  Ordinance  of  April  23,  1839,  No.  47. 

*  Ordinance  of  April  13,  1844,  No.  32. 

*  Ordinances  of  May  15,  1846,  No.  69;  March  19,  1853,  No.  18; 
July  22,  1852,  No.  71;  April,  1853,  No.  27. 


the  finances  of  baltimore  city,  1817-1856     i35 

Municipal  Buildings. 

The  legislative  and  administrative  departments  of  the  mu- 
nicipal government  continued  to  be  housed  in  quarters 
leased  of  private  individuals.  In  1821  the  City  Commis- 
sioners were  instructed  to  present  to  the  Council  plans  for 
the  erection  of  a  general  municipal  building.^  No  definite 
results  followed,  and  additional  quarters  were  leased  as  the 
increase  of  administrative  needs  required.  In  1830  a  joint 
committee  of  the  City  Council  reported  the  quarters 
then  occupied  by  the  corporation  as  inadequate,  and  rec- 
ommended the  purchase  of  a  separate  building.  The  struc- 
ture was  promptly  acquired  and  remained  the  seat  of  mu- 
nicipal government  for  some  twenty  years.  The  necessity 
of  erecting  a  permanent  city  hall  became  generally  recog- 
nized in  1844,  and  for  the  next  ten  years  the  determination 
of  plan  and  site  was  under  discussion.  In  1854  the  Legis- 
lature authorized  the  corporation  to  purchase  a  site,  to  erect 
a  building  and  to  issue  $400,000  in  city  stock  in  payment 
thereof.  No  immediate  steps  were  taken  and  in  1857  it 
again  became  necessary  to  provide  temporary  quarters  for 
city  officials." 

The  court  house  of  Baltimore  County  was  badly  injured 
by  fire  in  1834  and  a  special  commission  of  six  designated 
persons,  three  of  whom  were  residents  of  the  city  and  three 
of  the  county,  was  appointed  to  reconstruct  the  building. 
To  defray  the  expenditures  involved,  the  Mayor  and  City 
Council  were  authorized  to  issue  stock  to  an  amount  not 
exceeding  $80,000,  bearing  interest  at  five  per  cent,  and  irre- 
deemable for  twenty  years.  Interest  and  sinking  fund  were 
provided  by  an  annual  levy  in  equal  parts  upon  the  taxable 
property  of  Baltimore  City  and  County,  respectively.  The 
commissioners  were  required  to  account  to  the  corporation 
for  all  moneys  disbursed,  and  in  the  event  of  future  sepa- 
ration between  Baltimore  City  and  County,  provision  was 

*  Resolution  of  November  20,  1821. 

*  Scharf,  "  History  of  Baltimore  City  and  County,"  p.  175.  Reso- 
lutions of  April  16,  1844;  May  2,  1845;  May  28,  1853,  No.  167. 


136  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

made  that  the  whole  estate  of  the  court  house  should  be 
vested  in  the  city  upon  the  payment  to  the  county  of  one- 
half  of  the  value  thereof/ 

Special  appropriations  continued  to  be  made  from  time  to 
time  for  the  construction  of  minor  municipal  buildings,  as 
in  1819  for  the  erection  of  a  new  powder  magazine;'  in 
1 82 1  for  the  purchase  of  site  and  erection  of  an  engine 
house.' 

Administrative  Expenses. 

Municipal  expenditure  for  administrative  purposes,  in- 
cluding the  diary  of  the  City  Council  and  the  salaries  of 
strictly  administrative  officers,  rose  sharply  during  the  early 
years  of  the  period  here  considered.  This  was  due  to  a 
marked  increase  in  the  amount  of  municipal  salaries  rather 
than  to  any  multiplication  of  municipal  offices  or  to  an  in- 
crease in  minor  disbursements.*  In  the  decade  beginning 
with  1820  retrenchment  and  consolidation  kept  the  total 
administrative  expenditures  of  the  city  fairly  constant,  at  a 
figure  somewhat  less  than  the  aggregate  for  1819.  After 
1830  municipal  outlay  for  this  purpose  increased  gradually 
but  continuously,  with  the  accompanying  growth  of  the  ad- 
ministrative force  throughout  the  remainder  of  the  period. 
There  was  little  or  no  qualitative  change  in  the  character  of 
expenditure. 


1  (( 


Laws  of  Maryland,"  1834,  ch.  151.     In  1838  a  further  issue  of 
$25,000  was  authorized  subject  to  the  same  conditions. 

^  Ordinance  of  March  18,  1819. 

'  Resolution  of  February  27,  1821. 

*  A  comparison  of  the  important  salaries  paid  by  the  city  in  three 
successive  periods  is  interesting  in  this  connection: 

1815               1819  1823 

Mayor  $2500            $3600  $2000 

Register    1400                1810  1289 

City  Commissioners   2400               4598  74  2750 

Port  Wardens  1600  1875  

Health  Oflficer 600               1000  600 

Supts.  of  Streets  and  Pumps 960               2500  2250 

Clerks  of  Markets 97250          1500  1699  99 

Diary  of  City  Council 1039  50         2765  2971 


the  finances  of  baltimore  city,  1817-1856     i37 

Interest  on  Debt. 

Interest  charges  upon  the  funded  debt  of  Baltimore  first 
figured  to  any  considerable  amount  in  the  municipal  bud- 
gets of  1818  and  18 19.  The  inappreciable  growth  of  funded 
indebtedness  in  the  succeeding  decade  was  reflected  in  a 
practically  fixed  charge  from  1820  to  1830.  During  the 
next  twenty-five  years  the  normal  course  of  debt  accumula- 
tion was  radically  changed  by  the  large  participation  of 
Baltimore  in  the  policy  of  internal  improvements,  the  de- 
tails of  which  are  presented  in  another  connection.  Mu- 
nicipal subscriptions,  loans  and  guarantees  in  aid  of  various 
railroad  and  canal  projects  contributed  to  swell  the  funded 
liabilities  of  the  city  to  an  amount  utterly  disproportionate 
to  its  financial  resources,  and  to  convert  the  annual  interest 
payment  into  a  heavy  and  oppressive  charge.  In  1830  the 
funded  debt  of  the  city  was  little  more  than  $500,000  with 
an  annual  interest  burden  of  some  $25,000.  Fifteen  years 
later  (1844)  the  debt  had  increased  to  $5,493,773.03  with  an 
annual  interest  charge  of  $313,408.88.  The  policy  of  in- 
ternal improvements  was  responsible  for  practically  the  en- 
tire addition.  No  appreciable  increase  in  indebtedness  took 
place  between  1844  and  1850;  but  in  the  next  six  years  oc- 
curred an  increase  absolutely  greater  than  that  characteriz- 
ing the  period  from  1828  to  1844.  This  increment  was 
however  made  up  of  direct  and  guaranteed  loans  upon 
which  there  occurred  no  default  in  interest  payment  by  the 
recipients,  and  of  stock  issued  for  the  purchase  of  the  water 
plant,  interest  upon  which  was  paid  from  out  of  water  ren- 
tals. In  consequence  the  direct  interest  charge  of  the  city 
underwent  little  change  from  1844  to  1856. 

Of  those  who  clamored  for  the  successive  extension  of 
municipal  aid  to  works  of  internal  improvements,  few,  if 
any,  anticipated  that  a  continuous  municipal  burden  would 
be  thereby  entailed.  In  addition  to  the  advantage  derived 
by  the  general  economic  interests  of  the  city,  it  was  confi- 
dently expected  that  large  direct  returns  would  be  received 


138  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

by  the  city  for  its  loans  and  subscriptions.  In  the  case  of 
municipal  subscriptions  to  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  Rail- 
road, this  was  partly  realized  in  the  form  of  small  and  ir- 
regular dividends;^  from  the  city's  important  interests  in 
other  improvement  projects,  practically  no  direct  return  was 
received. 

^  See  below,  p.  172. 


CHAPTER  III 


MITNICIPAI/  REVENUE. 


The  relative  importance  of  the  several  forms  of  municipal 
revenue  underwent  radical  change  in  the  period  from  1817 
to  1856.  During  the  first  two  decades  of  the  corporate 
existence  of  Baltimore,  the  general  property  tax  was,  com- 
paratively speaking,  a  minor  source  of  income.  It  was  or- 
dinarily surpassed  in  yield  by  the  auction  receipts  tax  and 
by  the  license  tax,  and,  not  uncommonly,  by  the  special  as- 
sessment for  street  paving.  After  181 7  this  gradation  was 
completely  reversed.  The  proceeds  of  the  auction  receipts 
tax  remained  almost  stationary  until  diverted  into  the  state 
treasury  in  1827.  The  paving  assessment  declined  abso- 
lutely and  became  an  uncertain  source  of  municipal  income. 
License  taxes  and  wharfage  dues  increased  absolutely  in 
amount,  but  suffered  marked  relative  decline.  The  grow- 
ing demands  of  the  municipal  budget  were  thus  borne  al- 
most entirely  by  the  direct  taxation  of  general  property. 

Taxation, 

General  Property  Tax.^  Within  the  period  here  examined 
were  developed  the  characteristic  features  of  the  modern* 
general  property  tax  of  Baltimore:  the  employment  of  a 
common  basis  for  state  and  municipal  taxation,  the  absence 
of  any  periodic  local  reassessment,  the  levy  of  nominally 
distinct  rates,  and  the  allowance  of  discounts  for  prompt 
payment. 

(Assessment).  The  results  of  the  general  reassessments 
authorized  from  time  to  time  for  state  and  county  taxation 

*  See  Appendix  D. 

*  That  is  to  say,  the  system  in  vogue  until  1896. 

(139) 


140  THE    FINANCIAL    HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

were  promptly  utilized  for  local  purposes.  In  addition 
special  acts  of  the  legislature  vested  the  city  at  irregular  in- 
tervals with  authority  for  local  revaluation,  without  con- 
ferring power,  however,  for  continuous  or  periodic  reas- 
sessment. 

Thus  local  reassessments  of  real  and  personal  property 
were  made  in  1817  and  1822  by  the  Commissioners  of 
the  Tax  for  Baltimore  City  in  the  manner  prescribed  by  the 
general  reassessment  act  of  1812/  These  revaluations  were 
designed  primarily  for  the  public  levy,  but  provision  was 
made  in  each  case  for  the  employment  of  the  new  basis  for 
municipal  purposes/  The  act  of  1812  authorized  the  Com- 
missioners of  the  Tax  to  provide  for  the  annual  addition  to 
the  assessment  books  of  unassessed  property;  but  beyond 
the  initial  review  of  the  assessors'  returns,  the  Commis- 
sioners could  not  revise  valuations  once  made.  In  March, 
1827,  the  administration  of  Baltimore  County  was  transfer- 
red from  the  justices  of  the  Levy  Court  to  an  elected  board 
of  three  commissioners.  All  powers  of  the  Levy  Court  re- 
lating to  Baltimore  City,  including  the  assessment  of  prop- 
erty and  the  levy  of  municipal  taxes,  were  vested  in  the 
Mayor  and  City  Council,  instead  of  in  the  new  county  ad- 
ministration.^ It  accordingly  became  necessary  for  the  city 
to  make  independent  provision  for  the  limited  revision  of 
property  valuation,  hitherto  performed  by  county  authori- 
ties. This  was  first  done  in  1829.  Three  assessors  were 
appointed,  in  the  same  manner  as  other  municipal  officers, 
and  charged  with  the  addition  of  all  unassessed  property  to 
the  general  tax  lists.     The  Mayor  and  the  City  Collector 

^"  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1817,  ch.  142;  1822,  ch.  150.  Also  cf.  above, 
page  74- 

^Ordinance  of  February  22,  1819.  Resolutions  of  May  5,  1823; 
April  IS,  1826;  February  3,  1827;  January  24,  1828. 

* "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1826,  ch.  217.  This  general  transfer  was 
confirmed  by  a  supplementary  statute  of  the  following  year,  wherein 
the  board  of  Commissioners  of  the  Tax  for  Baltimore  City  was 
formally  abolished,  and  its  power  and  property  vested  in  the  cor- 
poration (ibid.,  1827,  ch.  80). 


THE    FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    1817-1856       I4I 

were  constituted  a  Board  of  Appeals,  with  power  of  final 
review.^  In  1830  provision  was  made  for  similar  appoint- 
ments and  additions  each  year  thereafter  until  a  new  gen- 
eral reassessment  should  be  made/ 

Specific  authority  was  conferred  upon  the  corporation  in 
1832  to  provide  by  ordinance  for  the  revaluation  of  all  prop- 
erty, real  and  personal,  within  the  city.*  The  total  assessed 
valuation  of  Baltimore  was  then  $3,564,904,  while  the  mu- 
nicipal levy  had  reached  $4.92^  upon  every  $100.  Despite 
the  urgent  need  of  revision,  indicated  by  these  figures,  no 
immediate  use  was  made  of  the  power  so  conferred.  Prob- 
lems of  sanitation,  presented  by  the  periodic  recurrence  of 
plague  and  fever,  were  engaging  the  corporate  administra- 
tion to  the  neglect  of  problems  of  finance.*  In  the  follow- 
ing year  the  power  of  the  city  to  make  a  new  assessment  of 
property  "  whenever  they  may  deem  it  expedient "  was  re- 
newed by  the  General  Assembly  in  even  broader  terms,  and 
under  this  second  grant,  provision  for  the  first  distinctly 
local  reassessment  of  property  in  Baltimore  was  made.* 
Five  Commissioners  of  Tax  were  elected  by  the  two 
branches  of  the  City  Council  in  joint  convention,  and  two 
Assessors  were  appointed  for  each  ward  in  the  usual  man- 
ner of  corporate  officers.  The  Assessors  were  required  to 
ascertain  and  assess  the  value  of  "  all  lands  and  lots  of 
ground,  all  houses  and  other  buildings,  and  improvements 
of  every  description,  and  all  furniture,  plate  and  slaves." 
Every  taxable  person  was  obliged  to  return  an  itemized  ac- 
count of  the  value  of  his  personal  estate — neglecting  to  do 
which,  such  estimate  was  to  be  prepared  by  the  Assessors 
to  the  best  of  their  ability.  The  Commissioners  of  Tax 
formed  a  final  board  of  review,  with  power  to  add  to  or  de- 
duct from  the  valuations  returned  "  so  as  to  conform  the 

^  Ordinance  of  March  19,  1829. 
"  Ordinance  of  February  16,  1830. 

*  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1831,  ch.  214. 

*  "  Report  of  the  Tax  Commission  of  Baltimore,"  1885,  pp.  lo-ii. 
'  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1833,  ch.  143. 


142  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

same  to  the  acts  of  Assembly,  and  usage  in  the  counties  of 
this  State." ' 

Great  difficulty  was  experienced  in  organizing  the  ma- 
chinery contemplated  by  the  ordinance.  The  Assessors 
were  entirely  without  experience,  and  the  interval  of  twenty- 
one  years  that  had  elapsed  since  the  last  general  revaluation 
of  property  in  Baltimore  rendered  the  entire  procedure  un- 
popular.'' After  six  months  delay,  a  supplementary  meas- 
ure was  passed,  enumerating  in  greater  detail  the  taxable 
forms  of  personal  wealth  and  authorizing  the  Assessors  to 
make  aggregate  instead  of  itemized  return  therefor."  New 
boards  of  Commissioners  of  Tax  and  Assessors  were  then 
appointed,  and  a  complete  reassessment  of  property  in  Balti- 
more was  made.  The  results  of  the  revaluation  were  more 
favorable  than  the  most  sanguine  had  anticipated.  The 
taxable  basis  was  increased  from  $3,787,762  to  $42,931,960, 
permitting  a  reduction  of  the  tax  rate  within  the  limits  of 
direct  taxation,  from  $4.77^  in  1835,  to  $  .66^  in  1836. 

The  extraordinary  results  of  the  reassessment  of  1834-35 
made  evident  the  desirability  of  periodic  revaluation.  Ma- 
chinery for  this  purpose  was  provided  in  1836  by  the  ap- 
pointment in  the  usual  manner  of  three  Assessors  exercising 
all  the  powers  vested  by  the  ordinances  of  1834  in  both  the 
Assessors  and  in  the  Commissioners  of  Tax.  The  new  As- 
sessors were  given  final  power  of  review  and  were  required 
to  return  to  the  City  Register  assessed  valuations  of  real 
and  personal  property  in  the  several  wards,  distinguishing 
property  "  within  "  from  that  "  without  "  the  limits  of  direct 
taxation.*  In  the  following  year  the  City  Collector  was 
authorized  to  make  transfers  on  the  assessment  books,  to 
allow  for  insolvencies  and  removals  from  the  city  and  to 
made  abatements  and  releases  required  by  error."     Finally 

^  Ordinance  of  May  12,  1834,  No.  32, 

'  See  Ordinance  of  June  10,  1834,  providing  for  temporary  ap- 
pointments by  the  Mayor. 

*  Ordinance  of  February  23,  1835,  No.  9. 

*  Ordinance  of  April  22,  1836,  No.  31. 

'  These  powers  were  exercised  subject  to  the  approbation  of  the 
Mayor. 


THE   FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    1817-1856       I43 

in  1839  provision  was  made  for  the  annual  appointment  of 
two  Assessors  of  Tax,  constituting  together  with  the  City 
Collector  a  final  board  of  review  for  the  revision  of  all  valu- 
ations/ 

The  logical  development  of  a  system  of  local  assessment 
along  the  lines  projected  by  municipal  legislation  in  1836-39 
was  interrupted  by  the  revival  of  direct  taxation  for  state 
purposes  in  1841.  The  reckless  participation  of  Maryland 
in  various  schemes  of  internal  improvement  in  the  decade 
from  1830  to  1840  resulted  in  the  accumulation  of  a  large 
and  oppressive  state  debt  Direct  taxation,  hitherto  dis- 
tinctly an  emergency  resource  in  Maryland,  became  in  1841 
the  only  means  of  averting  repudiation.  The  imposition 
of  a  general  property  tax  was  opposed,  resisted,  delayed, 
and  finally  effected  by  the  passage  on  April  i,  1 841,  of  "an 
act  for  the  general  valuation  and  assessment  of  property  in 
this  state,  and  to  provide  a  tax  to  pay  the  debts  of  the  state." 
It  authorized  the  first  general  reassessment  of  property  in 
Maryland  since  1812,  and  imposed  a  direct  property  tax  for 
state  purposes  of  one-fifth  of  one  per  cent.' 

The  act  of  1841  introduced  the  essential  features  of  the 
modern  property  assessment  system  of  Baltimore.  Specific 
provision  was  made  therein  that  the  resulting  valuation,  al- 
though designed  primarily  for  the  levy  of  the  state  tax, 
should  be  utilized  after  1841  for  municipal  taxation.  The 
twelve  wards  of  the  city  were  divided  into  six  assessment 
districts,  in  each  of  which  three  designated  Assessors  were 
appointed.  These  Assessors  were  directed  to  ascertain  and 
value,  by  oath  or  affirmation  if  necessary,  all  property 
liable  to  assessment,  and  to  make  return  thereof  with  values 
annexed  under  specific  categories:  (i)  Land,  (2)  Slaves, 
(3)  Stock  in  trade,  (4)  Public  securities,  (5)  Bank  and  other 
stocks,  (6)  Private  securities,  (7)  Live  stock,  (8)  Household 
furniture,  (9)  Plate,  (10)  Gold  and  silver  watches,  (11)  Prop- 
erty of  any  other  description.      Private  corporations  were 

^  Ordinance  of  March  25,  1839. 

*  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1841,  ch.  23. 


144  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

required  to  return  account  of  all  stock  held  by  non-residents. 
The  tax  levied  upon  such  stock  was  collected  from  the  cor- 
poration and  charged  to  the  account  of  the  particular  stock- 
holders. The  collector  of  the  state  tax  was  directed  to  as- 
sess any  property  liable  to  taxation  which  might  have  been 
omitted  in  the  regular  course  of  assessment.  The  Mayor 
and  City  Council  were  required  to  appoint  annually  a  board 
of  three  persons,  to  be  styled  the  Appeal  Tax  Court  of  Bal- 
timore City,  to  receive  and  record  the  reports  of  the  Asses- 
sors and  to  act  as  a  board  of  review.  A  final  right  of  appeal 
from  the  decisions  of  the  Appeal  Tax  Court  lay  to  the  Court 
of  Appeals  of  the  Western  Shore  of  Maryland. 

The  Appeal  Tax  Court  was  at  once  organized  by  the 
appointment  of  the  two  acting  Assessors  and  the  City  Col- 
lector, as  Judges.^  The  Court  was  merely  empowered  to 
review  the  valuations  of  assessors  made  under  the  statute 
of  1 84 1,  to  allow  for  transfers  of  property,  to  make  abate- 
ments in  case  of  loss  or  destruction  of  property,  to  assess 
the  stock  of  corporations  annually  returned  for  valuation, 
and  to  increase  the  assessment  of  persons  applying  for 
abatement,  should  it  appear  that  any  new  property  had  been 
acquired.  Aside  from  these  limited  powers,  the  Court,  as 
originally  constituted,  seems  to  have  possessed  no  authority 
whatever  to  revise  or  correct  valuations  once  made. 

The  taxable  basis  of  Baltimore  remained  practically  con- 
stant from  1 84 1  to  1846,  when  the  General  Assembly  au- 
thorized a  local  revaluation  of  all  property  subject  to  taxa- 
tion under  the  terms  of  the  statute  of  1841.  The  corpora- 
tion was  given  absolute  authority  to  arrange  the  machinery 
of  assessment,  "  for  ascertaining  and  determining,  by  a  fair 
and  just  valuation,  the  actual  wealth  of  the  citizens  of  Balti- 
more, which  shall  be  chargeable  according  to  such  valua- 
tion, with  the  public  assessment."  State  as  well  as  mu- 
nicipal taxes  were  to  be  levied  upon  the  resulting  basis.* 
Steps  were  at  once  taken  for  local  reassessment.     The  city 

*  Ordinance  of  May  8,  1841,  No.  i. 
' "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1845,  ch.  336. 


THE    FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    1817-1856       I45 

was  divided  into  fiye  districts,  in  each  of  which  three  Assess- 
ors were  appointed  by  the  Mayor  and  charged  with  the 
revaluation  of  all  taxable  property,  A  Board  of  Control 
and  Review  composed  of  five  persons,  one  from  each  dis- 
trict and  likewise  appointed  by  the  Mayor,  was  created — 
to  remain  in  existence  until  February,  1847,  when  its  func- 
tions were  to  be  assumed  by  the  Appeal  Tax  Court/ 
Thereafter  the  Appeal  Tax  Court  continued  charged  with 
the  correction  of  assessments  arising  from  the  transfer  or 
loss  of  old  and  the  acquisition  of  new  property,  but  without 
power  to  revise  and  correct  ordinary  valuations.* 

The  second  general  revaluation  of  property  for  purposes 
of  state  taxation  was  made  in  1852  in  much  the  form  pre- 
scribed by  the  reassessment  act  of  1841.  Baltimore  was 
divided  into  ten  districts,  in  each  of  which  three  designated 
persons  acted  as  assessors.  The  Appeal  Tax  Court,  tem- 
porarily enlarged  by  the  addition  of  two  designated  persons 
to  two  assessors  annually  appointed  by  the  corporation, 
served  as  a  board  of  control  and  review.  When  completed, 
this  revaluation  was  likewise  utilized  for  municipal  taxa- 
tion.* 

(Exemption).  In  1822  the  Mayor  was  authorized  to 
make  abatements  upon  assessed  valuations  of  other  than 
real  property,  when  such  appeared  "  just  and  reasonable," 
in  the  same  manner  as  done  by  the  Commissioners  of  Tax 
under  the  provision  of  the  general  assessment  act  of  1812.* 
In  cases  where  an  abatement  had  already  been  made  on  real 
property  for  state  and  county  taxation,  similar  action  with 
respect  to  the  municipal  levy  was  authorized.  Specific 
power  to  make  abatements  and  releases  of  taxes  on  real 
property,  subject  to  the  approbation  of  the  Mayor,  was 
conferred  upon  the  City  Collector  in  1828.' 

^  Ordinance  of  May  14,  1846,  No.  71. 
-  Ordinance  of  May  14,  1846,  No.  71. 
* "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1852,  ch.  337. 
*  Ordinance  of  January  28,  1822. 
'  Ordinance  of  April  8,  1828. 


146  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

The  local  reassessment  of  1834  exempted  from  taxation 
estates  in  personal  property  not  exceeding  $500  in  value, 
together  with  all  "  property  belonging  to  the  United  States, 
the  State  of  Maryland,  the  city  or  county  of  Baltimore, 
houses  for  public  worship,  burying  grounds,  college  build- 
ings, the  working  tools  of  mechanics  and  manufacturers, 
ships,  boats  and  other  vessels,  and  all  such  property  as  is 
exempted  from  taxation  by  special  acts  of  the  legislature."  ' 

In  1839  the  City  Council  resolved  "  that  it  would  not 
be  proper,  where  the  stock  of  corporations  is  assessed  to 
individuals  owning  it,  to  tax  also  property  held  by  corpora- 
tions themselves." '  This  was  followed  by  the  specific  ex- 
emption in  the  reassessment  of  1841  of  all  "  judgments, 
bonds,  mortgages,  promissory  notes  or  other  securities  be- 
longing to  any  bank  or  other  incorporated  institution,  the 
capital  stock  whereof  is  made  subject  to  taxation  by  the 
provisions  of  this  act."  *  In  the  same  measure  the  maxi- 
mum value  of  exempted  estates  was  reduced  to  $200,  appar- 
ently including  both  real  and  personal  property.* 

(Rate).  In  18 18  the  charter  limitation  of  the  local 
tax  to  a  maximum  levy  of  15  shillings  on  iioo  (.75  on 
$100),  was  displaced  by  a  provision  authorizing  the  corpo- 
ration to  levy  direct  taxes  to  "  such  amount  as  shall  be 
thought  necessary  for  the  public  or  city  purposes." '  Prompt 
use  was  made  of  the  extensive  power  thus  conferred.  In 
1818  the  rate  of  the  direct  tax,  the  proceeds  of  which  were 
available  for  general  municipal  purposes,  was  raised  from 
.75  to  $1.50  upon  each  $100  of  assessed  valuation.  In  1819 
occurred  a  further  increase  to  $2.00,  at  which  amount  it 
remained  fixed  until  1824,  when  it  was  raised  to  $2.50. 
Five  years  later,  in  1830,  it  was  again  increased  to  $3.00. 

Long  before  this,  the  imposition  of  the  direct  tax  upon 

*  Ordinance  of  May  12,  1834,  No.  32. 
'  Resolution  of  June  25,  1839,  No.  17. 
'"  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1841,  ch.  23. 

*  This  amount  was  further  reduced  to  $50  (Ibid.,  1841,  ch.  116). 
' "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1817,  ch.  148,  sect.  4. 


THE    FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    1817-1856       I47 

the  outlying,  thinly  settled  sections  of  the  city  created  dis- 
satisfaction, as  entailing  a  burden  with  no  corresponding 
benefit.  Accordingly,  the  General  Assembly  in  the  act  of 
18 1 7  authorized  the  Governor  of  Maryland  to  appoint  three 
non-residents  of  Baltimore  "  to  ascertain  and  mark  out  the 
limits  within  said  city,  so  far  as  the  same  is  in  their  judge- 
ment thickly  settled,  built  up,  or  improved;  and  in  which 
the  usual  regulations  for  watching  and  lighting,  or  clearing 
the  streets  are  or  ought  to  be  applied."  Beyond  the  limit 
thus  established  the  city  was  prohibited  from  imposing  the 
direct  property  tax  for  municipal  purposes,  and  the  dividing 
line  was  designated  as  "  the  limit  of  direct  taxation."  ^  In 
183 1,  provision  was  made  for  the  extension  of  the  boundary, 
so  as  to  include  such  portions  of  the  area  excluded  by  the 
survey  of  1817  as  stood  in  need  of  the  primary  municipal 
services  of  watching,  lighting  and  street  paving.'  In  1842 
the  corporation  was  authorized  to  extend  the  limits  of  direct 
taxation  within  the  city  boundaries  at  discretion,  subject 
only  to  the  limitation  that  no  block  should  be  included 
upon  which  less  than  six  houses  had  been  erected."  Such 
extensions  were  made  in  1842,  1850  and  1853. 

Increased  municipal  expenditure  for  specific  purposes  was 
defrayed,  as  noted  above,*  not  by  increasing  the  "  Direct 
Levy,"  but  by  the  levy  of  special  rates  as  required  for 
meeting  the  expenditures  entailed  by  the  several  new  func- 
tions. Such  special  levies  were  imposed  upon  the  taxable 
basis  of  the  entire  city,  without  regard  to  the  limit  of  direct 
taxation,  and  the  proceeds  were  probably  at  first  designed 
as  distinct  funds  for  specific  municipal  purposes,  instead 
of,  as  they  later  became,  mere  contributions  to  the  gen- 
eral municipal  treasury.  During  the  greater  part  of  the 
period  from  181 7  to  1856,  five  such  rates  were  annually 

^ "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1817,  ch.  148,  sect.  19. 
'"Laws  of  Maryland,"  1830,  ch.  139;  Ordinance  of  April  6,  1831, 
No.  21. 

•  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1842,  ch.  218;  Resolution  of  February  21, 
1843,  No.  23. 

*  Page  98. 


148  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

imposed  in  addition  to  the  Direct  Levy,  vis.,  Court  Levy, 
Poor  Levy,  School  Levy,  Levy  for  County  Expenditures 
for  City  Purposes,  and  Internal  Improvements  Levy.  The 
area  of  the  city  lying  without  the  limits  of  direct  taxation 
was  subject  to  a  special  Highway  and  Bridge  Levy.  The 
development  of  the  municipal  tax  rate  is  essentially  a  his- 
tory of  the  emergence  of  these  successive  levies. 

Court  Levy.  Upon  the  erection  of  Baltimore  City  Court 
in  181 7,  the  Levy  Court  of  Baltimore  County  was  authorized 
to  assess  annually  upon  the  taxable  property  of  the  city  the 
salaries  of  the  judges  and  all  other  incidental  expenditures 
as  ascertained  by  the  City  Court  itself.^  A  year  later,  the 
levy  of  this  aggregate  outlay  was  transferred  to  the  Mayor 
and  City  Council* 

Poor  Levy.  In  1819  the  trustees  of  the  almshouse  of 
Baltimore  County  were  instructed  to  prepare  an  annual 
statement  of  the  expenses  incurred  in  the  maintenance  of 
city  inmates,  and  this  amount  was  levied  upon  the  city  in 
the  same  manner  as  the  court  tax.'  After  the  transference 
of  the  care  of  the  institution  to  the  Trustees  of  the  Poor 
for  Baltimore  City  and  County  in  1822,  the  annual  state- 
ment was  prepared  by  that  body.* 

School  Levy.  Authority  for  the  establishment  of  a  dis- 
tinctly local  system  of  public  schools  was  conferred  by  the 
General  Assembly  of  Maryland  in  1826."  The  Mayor  and 
City  Council  of  Baltimore  were  therein  empowered  to  levy 
and  collect  in  addition  to  existing  taxes  and  with  due  re- 
gard to  the  actual  wealth  of  tax-payers  "  such  further  and 
other  taxes,  rates  or  assessments,  as  may  be  necessary  for 
the  support  of  such  public  schools."  The  first  actual 
levy  for  school  purposes  was  made  in  1830,  and  the  charge 
was  imposed  annually  thereafter. 

Levy  for  County  Expenditures  for  City  Purposes.'  After 

*  See  above,  page  125.  ' "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1817,  ch.  195. 
''Ibid.,  1818,  ch.  122.  *Ibid.,  1822,  ch.  167. 
'  Ibid.,  1825,  ch.  130. 

•  Designated  also  as  "  Certain   Expenses  Levy." 


THE   FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    1817-1856       I49 

the  transfer  of  the  powers  of  the  Levy  Court  of  Baltimore 
County  to  a  board  of  County  Commissioners  in  1828,  the 
Mayor  and  City  Council  were  authorized  to  levy  upon 
the  city  its  proportion,  for  the  year  elapsed,  of  the  judicial 
expenses  of  Baltimore  County  and  of  certain  allied  charges 
theretofore  assessed  upon  the  city  by  the  Levy  Court  of  the 
county/  This  function  was  re-imposed  in  successive  years, 
and  in  1831  a  general  ordinance  was  passed  authorizing  an 
annual  levy  for  the  payment  of  expenses  "  formerly  required 
to  be  paid  by  the  late  Levy  Court  of  Baltimore  County." ' 
These  included  the  city's  proportion  of  the  expenses  of  the 
courts,  the  court-house  and  the  jail  of  Baltimore  County, 
the  removals  of  criminal  trials,  the  payment  of  coroners, 
federal  and  state  elections,  collection  of  the  levy  and  of 
certain  miscellaneous  services. 

Internal  Improvement  Levy.  Prior  to  1839  the  interest 
charge  upon  that  part  of  the  municipal  debt  contracted  in 
aid  of  works  of  internal  improvement  was  defrayed  from 
out  of  the  general  fund  of  the  municipal  treasury.  In  1839 
the  burden  had  become  oppressive  and  authority  was  ob- 
tained from  the  General  Assembly  to  levy  on  all  assessed 
property  of  the  city,  both  on  that  within  and  on  that  with- 
out the  limits  of  direct  taxation,  "  any  sum  or  sums  which 
may  be  necessary  to  pay  and  discharge  the  principal  and 
interest  of  any  loan  or  loans  which  may  have  heretofore 
been  obtained  or  which  may  hereafter  be  obtained  by  the 
said  Mayor  and  City  Council  of  Baltimore,  for  the  purpose 
of  prosecuting  and  completing  the  works  of  internal  im- 
provement now  authorized  by  law." '  A  week  later  a  tax 
of  ten  and  one-half  cents  was  levied,  the  proceeds  to  be  ap- 
plied by  the  Commissioners  of  Finance  for  the  payment  of 
interest  upon  one  million  dollars  of  the  city's  subscription 
to  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  Railroad  Company.*    Thereafter 

^  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1827,  ch.  80  and  167. 
^  Ordinance  of  April  25,  1831,  No.  32. 
»  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1838,  ch.  168. 
*  Ordinance  of  March  14,  1839,  No.  14. 


150  THE    FINANCIAL    HISTORY    OF    BALTIMORE 

the  levy  was  annually  made  in  aid  of  the  interest  charge 
upon  the  internal  improvement  debt. 

Highway  and  Bridge  Levy.  The  area  of  the  city  lying 
without  the  limit  of  direct  taxation,  although  exempt  from 
any  direct  municipal  tax,  was  nevertheless  the  occasion  of 
considerable  municipal  expenditure,  notably  for  the  repair 
of  highways  and  the  construction  of  bridges.  To  remedy 
this  inequality,  the  General  Assembly  in  1824  authorized  the 
corporation  to  levy  upon  this  district  a  special  direct  tax  of 
thirty-five  cents  upon  every  hundred  dollars,  the  proceeds 
to  be  so  expended.^  In  February,  1828,  the  maximum  rate 
of  the  tax  was  increased  by  act  of  the  General  Assembly 
from  thirty-five  to  fifty  cents.^  In  actual  practice  the  tax 
was  levied  at  the  rate  of  thirty-five  cents  from  1824  to  1832, 
and  of  fifty  cents  from  1832  to  1836,  in  which  latter  year  the 
results  of  the  general  assessment  of  property  became  avail- 
able. Nominally  the  tax  was  levied  only  on  real  property 
("  houses  and  lands  ").  State  and  local  assessments,  how- 
ever, failed  to  make  separate  return  of  realty  and  personalty 
and  in  practise  the  charge  seems  to  have  been  imposed 
upon  the  aggregate  assessment.' 

(Statutory  Limitation).  The  statutory  limitation  fixed 
by  the  original  charter  of  Baltimore  upon  the  rate  of  mu- 
nicipal taxation  was  annulled  in  1818  and  unqualified  au- 
thority vested  in  the  corporation  to  impose  direct  taxes  to 
the  amount  required  for  municipal  purposes.*  Not  until 
183 1  was  this  broad  power  restricted  by  the  provision  that 
the  municipality  should  not  in  any  one  year  raise  by 
direct  taxation  a  sum  exceeding  $120,000,  nor  by  all  forms 
of  taxation  a  sum  exceeding  $220,000."  The  municipal 
treasury  suflfered  serious  embarrassment  from  this  limitation. 
To  comply  therewith,  it  became  necessary  to  cut  down  the 
rate  of  the  direct  tax  from  the  figure  before  levied  and  still 

^ "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1823,  ch.  185;  continued  by  ibid.,  1827,  ch. 
87  and  made  perpetual  by  ibid.,  1836,  ch.  120. 

*  Ibid.,  1827,  ch.  87.  '  See  below,  p.  267. 

*  Cf.  above,  p.  95. 

*  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1830,  ch.  139,  sect.  3. 


THE    FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    1817-1856       ISI 

required  by  ordinary  municipal  expenses.  Moreover  the 
limitation  practically  prevented  the  extension  of  municipal 
aid  to  the  works  of  internal  improvement  then  projected/ 

In  March,  1832,  the  city  representatives  in  the  state  legis- 
lature were  requested  by  resolution  of  the  City  Council  to 
secure  amendatory  legislation  whereby  the  restriction  of 
tax  proceeds  to  $120,000  should  apply  only  to  the  original 
"  direct  tax,"  thereby  excluding  "  city  poor,  city  court, 
school,  county  tax  for  city  purposes,  paving  tax,  pump  tax, 
specific  tax,  road  and  bridge  tax,  and  the  interest  on  the 
railroad  stock,  exclusive  of  any  dividends  thereon." '  The 
desired  relief  was  promptly  afforded  by  the  repeal  of  all 
limitation  upon  the  taxing  power  of  the  corporation/  When 
in  1834  such  a  limitation  was  again  imposed,  the  maximum 
amount  was  fixed  at  $200,000  and  specific  provision  was 
made  that  this  applied  only  to  taxes  "  for  the  purpose  of 
defraying  the  corporation  expenses,  exclusive  of  all  others," 
i.  e.  to  the  proceeds  of  the  "  direct  tax."  *  Five  years  later 
the  municipality  found  itself  again  hampered  by  the  rigid 
statutory  limit  and  made  application  for  a  further  increase." 
This  too  was  successful,  and  the  maximum  sum  to  be  raised 
by  direct  taxation  for  defraying  "  the  expenses  of  the  cor- 
poration "  was  fixed  by  the  General  Assembly  at  $350,000 
per  annum.  From  this  amount  were  expressly  excluded 
the  proceeds  of  all  municipal  taxes,  for  the  imposition  of 
which  specific  authority  had  been  or  should  be  conferred 
upon  the  corporation.'  In  1853  upon  petition  of  the  corpo- 
ration, the  General  Assembly  increased  the  maximum  yield 
of  the  "  direct  tax  "  to  $500,000/ 

(Collection).  Before  181 7  the  collection  of  local  dues 
and  charges  had  become  a  formal  municipal  office,     Exist- 

^  Cf.  Mayor's  Message  of  January  2,  1832. 
^  Resolution  of  March  i,  1832,  No.  24. 
* "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1831,  ch.  214. 

*  Ibid.,  1833,  ch.  143. 

'  Resolution  of  February  28,  1839,  No.  35. 

*  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1838,  ch.  208. 

''Ibid.,  1852,  ch.  233;  Resolution  of  May  10,  1853,  No.  131. 


152  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

ing  provisions  were  collated  in  a  single  ordinance  in  1826/ 
The  annual  appointment  was  therein  authorized  of  a  City 
Collector,  who  was  required  to  enter  into  heavy  bond  with 
the  corporation  and  to  account  monthly  with  the  Register 
for  funds  received.  The  provision  for  the  annual  appoint- 
ment of  a  Collector  practically  resulted  in  the  successive 
reappointment  of  the  actual  incumbent.  Largely  in  con- 
sequence, the  earlier  practice  of  requiring  the  completion 
of  collections  within  a  definite  period,  unless  extended 
by  special  ordinance,  continued  for  several  years  but  ap- 
pears thereafter  to  have  fallen  into  disuse.^  The  personal 
liability  of  the  Collector  for  the  return  of  all  taxes  levied 
remained  unchanged.  He  was  charged  each  year  with  the 
aggregate  amount  levied,  and  credited  with  the  sums  re- 
turned and  with  remissions  made  in  cases  of  insolvency  and 
removal.  Arrears  were  carried  forward  from  year  to  year 
until  extinguished  by  outright  sale  to  the  Collector.  This 
was  ordinarily  done  by  special  resolution  of  the  corporation. 
Thus  in  1829  the  Collector  was  discharged  from  liability  for 
the  taxes  of  1821,  1822  and  1823  upon  the  payment  of  $225, 
and  in  1830  from  liability  for  the  taxes  of  1824,  1825  and 
1826  upon  payment  of  $542.47.'  The  machinery  thus  pro- 
vided was  extremely  defective  as  a  means  of  securing 
prompt  collection  of  the  annual  municipal  levy.  In  1836 
of  the  aggregate  property  tax  levied,  $153,230  was  paid 
into  the  city  treasury,  while  the  sum  of  $142,014.24  re- 
mained in  arrears.  In  1837  "  as  much  money  was  collected 
for  street  opening  as  for  city  taxes,  without  the  twentieth 

^  Ordinance  of  April  7,  1826. 

^Ordinances  of  March  24,  1819;  February  11,  1820;  March  29, 
1821. 

'  Resolutions  of  April  6,  1829;  April  8,  1830;  February  16,  1832; 
February  26,  1833;  April  3,  1838,  No.  35.  The  continued  liability 
of  the  Collector  led  to  somewhat  anomalous  results  when  the  actual 
incumbent  was  not  reappointed.  Thus  in  1837  two  City  Collectors 
were  in  office — the  new  one  charged  with  the  collection  of  the  levy 
for  1836,  the  old  one  with  the  completion  of  the  levies  of  1833,  1834 
and  1835. 


THE   FINANCES    OF    BALTIMORE    CITY,    1817-1856       1 53 

part  of  the  complaints."  ^  The  acute  industrial  depression 
following  the  crisis  of  1837  accented  the  evil.  Tax  collec- 
tions diminished  alarmingly  and  the  credit  of  the  city  was 
threatened. 

In  August,  1840,  a  resolution  of  the  Mayor  and  City 
Council  declared  all  taxes  to  be  payable  within  the  year  for 
which  they  were  assessed.  An  emphatic  note  of  warning 
was  sounded  in  Mayor  Samuel  Brady's  Message  of  January 
4,  1841 :  "  It  is  very  evident  that  some  more  summary  pro- 
cess must  be  adopted  in  the  collection  of  taxes  than  that 
heretofore  pursued  or  else  the  city  will  be  compelled  to  dis- 
honor its  obligations,  from  the  inability  to  meet  the  de- 
mands upon  the  Treasury/'  This  state  of  afifairs,  it  was 
stated,  was  largely  due  to  the  fact  that  the  Collector  could 
only  proceed  against  delinquent  tax-payers  as  in  ordinary 
cases  of  indebtedness.  The  remedy  proposed  was  that 
taxes  upon  property  should  be  made  liens,  and  that  prop- 
erty itself  should  be  applied  to  their  payment  by  immediate 
sale  instead  of  by  execution  upon  judgment.  Application 
to  this  effect  was  made  to  the  General  Assembly,"  and  in 
February,  1841,  the  necessary  authority  was  conferred." 
The  City  Collector  was  directed  to  enforce  the  prompt  col- 
lection of  taxes  and  of  special  assessments  for  street  pav- 
ing, levied  upon  city  lots,  by  public  sale  after  due  notice. 
Property  thus  sold  might  be  redeemed  by  the  deHnquent 
tax-payer  within  two  years  of  the  time  of  sale,  upon  pay- 
ment of  all  advances  with  interest  together  with  a  penalty 
of  eighteen  per  cent.*  No  change  was  made  in  existing 
procedure  with  respect  to  houses  and  personal  property. 

To  simplify  the  book-keeping  of  the  City  Collector's  de- 
partment, provision  was  made  in  1845  ^o^  ^  general  account 
to  be  kept  by  the  Register  with  the  Collector  for  all  taxes 
levied  by  the  corporation.     To  this  end,  the  Appeal  Tax 

*  Mayor's  Message  of  January  4,  1841. 
'  Resolutions  of  1841.  No.  13. 

*  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1840,  ch.  63. 

*  Ordinance  of  March  9,  1841,  No.  13. 


154  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

Court  was  required  to  transmit  annually  to  the  Register 
written  statements  of  the  whole  assessable  basis,  of  addi- 
tional assessments  and  of  abatements  made  in  the  preceding 
year.  The  Register  was  directed  to  charge  the  Collector 
in  a  general  account  with  the  net  amount  of  taxes  so  levied, 
and  to  credit  him  with  the  sum  of  all  funds  collected,  as 
well  as  with  all  discounts  allowed  for  prompt  payment.  At 
the  close  of  each  fiscal  year  the  old  account  was  closed, 
and  arrearages  carried  forward  as  a  charge  against  the  Col- 
lector in  the  new  account.  Similar  procedure  was  pre- 
scribed for  the  special  assessments  levied  for  paving  and  re- 
paving  and  for  wells  and  pumps.^  In  1852  a  new  official, 
designated  the  City  Auditor,  was  appointed  for  the  pur- 
pose of  keeping  the  accounts  between  the  city  and  the  City 
Collector;^  but  the  old  system  was  probably  again  intro- 
duced in  1855,  when  the  duties  of  the  Auditor  were  changed 
to  the  collection  of  taxes  in  arrears.' 

With  the  view  of  encouraging  the  prompter  payment  of 
municipal  taxes,  the  City  Collector  in  1835  proposed  the 
introduction  in  Baltimore  of  the  practice  prevailing  in  other 
cities,  where  "  inducements  are  held  out  for  the  prompt  and 
punctual  discharge  of  the  pubHc  dues,  by  allowing  to  those 
who  pay  before  certain  periods,  a  discount  graduated  agree- 
ably to  the  times  of  payment,  and  by  charging  interest  on 
all  sums  remaining  unpaid  after  a  certain  day."  *  The  sug- 
gestion was  adopted  in  the  following  year,  when  provision 
was  made  for  the  allowance  of  a  discount  for  prompt  pay- 
ment of  the  local  taxes  of  the  current  year  and  for  the 
charge  of  interest  upon  taxes  in  arrears.*^  Essentially  simi- 
lar action  was  taken  in  1837,'  and  in  1841  the  use  of  dis- 

^  Ordinance  of  March  10,  1845,  No.  10.  The  state  tax  on  prop- 
erty within  the  city  was  collected  by  the  City  Collector  ("  Laws  of 
Maryland,"  1841,  ch.  325  and  328;  Ordinance  of  April  8,  1842,  No. 

34). 

'  Ordinance  of  June  18,  1852,  No.  58. 

*  Ordinance  of  March  9,  1855,  No.  10. 

*  City  Collector's  Report  of  January  5,  1835. 
"  Ordinance  of  April  14,  1836,  No.  62. 

*  Resolution  of  March  22,  1837,  No.  46. 


THE    FINANCES    OF    BALTIMORE    CITY,    1817-1856       1 55 

counts  for  prompt  payment  of  taxes  and  of  interest  penalties 
for  arrearages,  which  has  since  remained  a  feature  of  the 
Baltimore  tax  system  was  permanently  introduced.  In 
succeeding  years  the  rates  of  discount  and  interest  were 
varied,  often  in  accord  with  the  fiscal  exigencies  of  the 
corporation,  but  the  practice  remained  essentially  un- 
changed. 

Notwithstanding  these  devices,  the  aggregate  arrearages 
increased  more  than  proportionately  with  the  increase  in 
the  amount  of  municipal  taxes  levied.  This  was  due  partly 
to  the  failure  to  enlarge  the  force  of  the  Collector's  office, 
partly  to  the  limited  power  possessed  by  that  official  to  en- 
force collections.  Various  remedies  were  proposed,  such 
as  an  advance  in  the  beginning  of  the  fiscal  year,  an  in- 
crease in  the  rate  of  discount  allowed  for  prompt  payment 
and  the  appointment  of  a  special  collector  of  taxes  in  ar- 
rears.^ This  last  suggestion  was  practically  adopted  in 
1855  by  the  change  in  the  duties  of  the  City  Auditor  already 
noted.^  The  remuneration  of  the  Collector  continued  for 
some  years  to  be  a  definite  percentage  upon  his  collections, 
ordinarily  specified  in  the  ordinance  authorizing  the  levy. 
As  the  aggregate  yield  of  municipal  charges  increased,  the 
rate  of  the  commission  was  successively  reduced  from  eight 
and  six  per  cent,  prevailing  before  1817,  to  four,  three  and  a 
half  and  three  per  cent.  In  1841  a  fixed  annual  salary  was 
substituted  for  the  fees  and  commissions  before  received." 

SpeciHc  Taxes.  Specific  taxes  continued  to  be  imposed 
upon  four-wheeled  riding  carriages,  sulkies,  riding  horses, 
Avagons,  as  prescribed  in  the  enactments  of  1782  and  1801.* 
Distinct  provision  for  the  assessment  of  the  tax  was  made 
in  each  annual  levy  until  1818,  when  a  general  ordinance 
was  passed  for  the  annual  appointment  of  one  or  more  As- 
sessors of  Specific  Taxes.     These  Assessors  were  required 

*  Mayor's  Messages  of  January,  1855,  and  January,  1856. 
'  See  above,  p.  97. 

*  Ordinance  of  March  3,  1841,  No.  7,  sect.  15. 
"*  See  above,  pp.  28,  76. 


156  THE   FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

to  make  sworn  return  to  the  City  Collector  of  every  ve- 
hicle taxable,  with  the  name  and  residence  of  the  owner. 
Failing  to  locate  the  owner  the  tax  was  imposed  upon  the 
person  in  whose  possession  the  object  was  found.^  In  1840 
the  duties  of  the  Assessors  of  Specific  Taxes  were  vested 
in  the  Board  of  Assessors  appointed  by  the  ordinance  of 
March  25,  1839,^  and  in  1843  the  specific  taxes  were  abol- 
ished and  a  general  tariff  of  license  taxes  on  vehicles  was 
adopted  in  lieu  thereof." 

Aiiction  Receipts  Tax.  The  tax  on  auction  sales  remained 
fixed  at  one  per  cent,  of  gross  receipts.  Certain  forms  of 
property  were  occasionally  exempted  and  slight  modifica- 
tions were  introduced  in  the  authorized  auctioneers'  fees; 
but  in  1826  the  tax  was  continued  in  practically  unchanged 
form.*  For  some  years  before  this,  the  large  yield  of  the 
tax  had  been  regarded  with  jealous  eye  by  the  state  legis- 
lature at  Annapolis.  Formal  attempt  was  made  at  the  leg- 
islative session  of  1820  to  divert  the  proceeds  of  the  tax 
from  the  municipal  into  the  state  treasury,  but  without  suc- 
cess." Seven  years  later  this  was  however  accomplished. 
The  Governor  and  his  Council  were  then  authorized  to 
appoint  auctioneers,  not  exceeding  twenty  in  number,  for 
the  city  of  Baltimore,  upon  whom  the  exclusive  right  of 
conducting  public  sales  was  conferred.  The  rate  of  the 
tax  remained  unchanged  at  one  per  cent.;  but  the  proceeds 
thereof,  as  well  as  of  the  license  taxes  on  auctioneers,  were 
paid  into  the  state  treasury.  In  place  of  this  revenue,  the 
sum  of  twenty  thousand  dollars  from  out  of  the  proceeds  of 
the  tax  on  auction  sales  was  annually  appropriated  to  the 
city  of  Baltimore  to  be  expended  exclusively  in  deepening 
and  improving  the  harbor.  If  the  proceeds  of  the  tax  did 
not  aggregate  the  sum  appropriated,  the  appropriation  was 

*  Ordinance  of  March  20,   1818. 

^  Ordinance  of  February  27,  1840,  No.  6. 

'  Ordinance  of  April  11,  1843,  No.  33.     Cf.  below,  p.  158. 

*  Ordinance  of  March  16,  1826. 

"  Resolution  of  January  13,  1821. 


THE    FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    1817-1856       1 57 

reduced  to  the  amount  realized/  This  appropriation  was 
made  annually  thereafter  and  served  in  some  measure  to 
allay  local  feeling  against  the  assumption  by  the  state  of 
what  had  long  been  regarded  as  a  source  of  distinctly  mu- 
nicipal revenue. 

In  1836  the  General  Assembly  appointed  three  persons 
as  commissioners  to  assess  the  damages  suffered  by  certain 
citizens  of  Baltimore  in  the  bank  riots  of  August  8-10,  1835, 
and  to  make  return  thereof  to  one  of  the  state  treasurers, 
who  was  in  turn  directed  to  issue  to  the  parties  affected 
interest-bearing  stock  of  the  State  of  Maryland  to  the 
amount  of  the  award.  Upon  the  ground  that  the  violence 
was  the  result  of  the  neglect  of  the  municipal  authorities, 
the  payment  of  the  indemnity  was  imposed  upon  the  city. 
Provision  was  made  that  the  annual  appropriation  of 
$20,000  from  out  the  proceeds  of  the  auction  tax  should  be 
withheld  from  the  city  and  should  be  utilized  for  the  re- 
demption of  state  stock  thus  issued,  unless  the  corporation 
should  provide  for  its  prior  payment  by  a  levy  upon  the 
assessable  property  of  the  city  or  by  a  corporate  loan. 
Should  this  be  done  within  two  years,  the  annual  state  ap- 
propriation was  to  be  renewed,  subject  as  before  to  the 
future  control  and  disposition  of  the  legislature.'  The 
awards  of  the  commissioners  were  made  a  year  later  and 
fixed  the  aggregate  damages  suffered  at  the  sum  of  $102,- 
552.82.* 

The  action  of  the  General  Assembly  excited  much  bitter- 
ness and  hostility  in  Baltimore.  With  the  avowed  purpose 
of  testing  the  legality  of  the  diversion,  an  ordinance  was 
passed  in  1836  declaring  the  action  of  the  legislature  un- 
constitutional and  restoring  the  proceeds  of  the  auction  tax 
to  the  city  treasury.  The  preamble  of  this  ordinance  indi- 
cated the  attitude  of  the  city :  "  It  is  the  opinion  of  this 
corporation  that  the  act  of  Assembly  ...  is  in  its  operation 

^ "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1827,  ch.  iii. 

'Ibid.,  183s,  ch.  184;  also  cf.  ibid.,  1835,  ch.  226. 

'  Scharf,  "  Chronicles  of  Baltimore,"  p.  489. 


158  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

unequal,  oppressive  and  unjust;  and  in  so  much  as  it  im- 
poses pecuniary  burdens  upon  the  citizens  of  Baltimore,  for 
the  use  of  the  state,  from  which  all  other  citizens  of  the 
state  are  free  and  exempt,  is  in  violation  of  the  bill  of  rights 
and  constitution  of  Maryland."  ^  The  protest  of  the  mu- 
nicipality was  unavailing.  Indemnity  stock  was  issued  by 
the  state  and  the  customary  appropriation  from  out  the 
proceeds  of  the  auction  tax  was  withheld  from  the  corpora- 
tion. 

In  1844  the  City  Council  represented  to  the  legislature 
that  principal  and  interest  of  the  indemnity  loan  had  long- 
since  been  redeemed  from  out  the  proceeds  of  the  auction 
tax,  and,  the  citizens  of  Baltimore  being  "  grievously  bur- 
thened  with  the  weight  of  taxation  imposed  on  them  for  the 
improvement  of  the  state,"  besought  the  restoration  of  the 
auction  duties  to  the  municipal  treasury.*  A  similar  peti- 
tion for  the  annual  appropriation  of  twenty  thousand  dollars, 
from  out  the  proceeds  of  the  auction  tax  receipts  to  be  ap- 
plied as  before  to  deepening  and  improving  the  harbor  was' 
made  in  1852.'  Finally  in  1853  the  annual  state  appropria- 
tion for  this  purpose  was  resumed/ 

License  Taxes.  Changes  in  detail  rather  than  in  essence 
were  made  in  the  license  taxes  imposed  upon  municipal 
officials,  upon  vehicles  and  upon  public  amusements.  A 
rough  adaptation  of  tax  to  income  continued  to  character- 
ize the  license  charge  upon  city  officials.  With  the  gradual 
substitution  of  fixed  salaries  for  fees  and  perquisites,  this 
source  of  municipal  revenue  became  insignificant.  The 
tariflF  of  license  taxes  upon  vehicles  was  modified  from  time 
to  time  until  in  1843  the  specific  tax  was  repealed,  and 
provision  was  made  for  the  annual  registration  in  the 
City  Register's  office  of  all  vehicles  and  for  the  fixture 
thereupon    of    a    corresponding    numbered    tin    plate.     A 

*  Ordinance  of  June  24,  1836,  No.  52,  sect.  14. 

*  Resolution  of  January  23,  1844,  No.  2. 
'  Resolution  of  April  21,  1852,  No.  69. 

*  Ordinance  of  June  16,  1853,  No.  66. 


THE    FINANCES    OF    BALTIMORE    CITY,    1817-1856       I59 

schedule  of  license  taxes  was  prescribed,  renewable  annually 
and  subject  to  a  slight  fee  for  transfer/  License  taxes  upon 
public  amusements  underwent  repeated  and  spasmodic 
change  in  amount.  In  general  they  remained  imposed 
upon  all  theatrical  and  musical  entertainments,  museums, 
circuses,  bowling  alleys,  public  billiard  tables  and  shufifle 
boards. 

To  discourage  the  further  influx  of  pauper  immigrants 
and  to  provide  for  the  support  of  those  in  Baltimore,  the 
General  Assembly  in  1833  authorized  the  corporation  to 
require  every  master  of  a  vessel  landing  alien  passengers 
at  Baltimore,  to  pay  a  tax  of  $1.50  for  each  such  person  or 
to  enter  into  indemnity  bond  to  the  sum  of  $150  for  each 
immigrant  for  public  charges  that  might  be  incurred  within 
a  period  of  two  years.  The  proceeds  of  the  tax,  as  well  as 
penalties  and  forfeitures  accruing  under  the  act,  were  appro- 
priated to  the  Trustees  for  the  Poor  of  Baltimore  City  and 
County,  and  to  the  German  Society  of  Maryland  and  the 
Hibernian  Society  of  Baltimore  in  such  proportions  as  the 
Mayor  and  City  Council  of  Baltimore  might  determine.'' 
In  1834  two-fifths  of  the  revenues  accruing  under  the  act 
were  appropriated  to  the  two  benevolent  societies,"  and  in 
1842  the  remaining  three-fifths  were  specifically  appro- 
priated to  the  Trustees  of  the  Poor  for  Baltimore  City  and 
County — ^two-fifths  to  be  credited  to  the  account  of  the 
city  and  one-fifth  to  that  of  the  county.*  The  tax  had 
been  made  compulsory  some  years  before  by  the  repeal  of 
the  alternative  right  of  ship-owners  to  enter  into  indem- 
nity bond,"  and  the  city's  share  of  the  proceeds  became  con- 
siderable after  1843.'  This  source  of  revenue  was  threat- 
ened by  the  decisions  of  the  U.  S.  Supreme  Court  declaring 

'  Ordinance  of  April  11,  1843,  No.  33. 

*"  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1832,  ch.  303.  *  Ibid.,  1833,  ch.  117. 

*  Ibid.,  1841,  ch.  174.  '^  Ibid.,  1834,  ch.  84;  1849,  ch.  46. 

' "  Report  of  the  Trustees  for  the  Poor  of  Baltimore  City  and 
County,"  for  1849. 


l6o  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTCRY    OF   BALTIMORE 

similar  acts  of  the  states  of  New  York  and  Massachusetts, 
levying  taxes  on  foreign  passengers,  to  be  in  conflict  with 
the  8th  section  of  Article  I.  of  the  U.  S.  Constitution."  The 
New  York  legislature  promptly  enacted  a  modified  law, 
presumably  meeting  the  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court. 
Such  action,  although  recommended,  was  apparently  not 
taken  in  Maryland;  yet  the  imposition  of  the  charge  seems 
to  have  continued  uninterruptedly.' 

Market-houses  had  been  erected  in  the  city,  primarily  for 
the  sale  of  food  supplies,.  From  time  to  time  special  per- 
mits were  issued  by  the  municipal  authorities  for  the  sale 
of  general  merchandise,  until  inconvenience  and  loss  were 
suffered  by  the  original  occupants.  In  1824  a  tarif?  of  li- 
cense taxes  was  imposed  upon  such  transactions,  and  the 
sale  of  imported  goods  in  the  markets  was  entirely  pro- 
hibited.' This  tariff  was  reenacted  in  almost  unchanged 
form  in  1826,*  but  in  the  following  year  the  whole  schedule 
was  repealed  and  the  retail  sale  of  merchandise  in  any  of 
the  markets  of  the  city  was  entirely  prohibited  after  March, 
1827."  An  annual  license  tax  upon  all  hucksters  was  im- 
posed in  1823.  This  was  repealed  in  1832  and  a  per  diem 
charge  was  substituted  therefor.'  Representation  being 
made  to  the  General  Assembly  that  this  charge  was  "  un- 
equal, unjust  and  oppressive,"  the  city  was  forbidden  in 
1835  to  impose  any  local  market  license  tax  or  charge  upon 
non-residents  of  Baltimore  offering  for  sale  either  in  per- 
son or  by  agent  articles  of  their  own  production." 

A  special  license  tax  ($4  per  annum),  in  addition  to  the 
regular  state  tax  ($12  per  annum),  was  imposed  in   1829 

^  Passenger  Cases  (Smith  vs.  Turner,  Health  Commissioner  of  the 
port  of  New  York,  and  Norris  vs.  The  City  of  Boston),  7  How. 
283. 

^  See  "  Register's  Summary,"  January  22,  1856.  In  the  succeed- 
ing period  of  municipal  history,  the  charge,  although  apparently 
never  repealed,  was  allowed  to  lapse. 

"  Ordinance  of  March  9,  1824. 

*  Ordinance  of  April  7,  1826. 

°  Ordinances  of  February  12  and  March  2,  1827. 

*  Ordinance  of  March  31,  1832,  No.  31. 
'  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1835,  ch.  297. 


THE   FINANCES   OF   BALTIMORE   CITY,    1817-1856      161 

upon  all  retail  liquor  dealers  in  Baltimore,  and  the  proceeds 
appropriated  to  defraying  the  city's  share  of  the  expenses 
of  the  jail,^  Application  was  made  to  the  legislature  of 
1839  for  the  appropriation  of  all  the  receipts  from  liquor 
licenses  in  Baltimore  City  and  County  to  the  Trustees  for 
the  Poor,  but  without  favorable  results.'  License  taxes 
were  also  imposed  on  dogs,  on  the  vending  of  charcoal  and 
foreign  fruits,  on  pawnbrokers,  on  the  excavation  of  vaults 
and  areas,  and  on  the  sale  of  firewood  at  public  wharves. 

Special  Assessments. 

Street  Paving.  In  form  and  mode  of  imposition,  the 
special  assessment  for  street  paving,  or  "  paving  tax,"  un- 
derwent little  change  from  1817  until  the  close  of  the  period 
here  considered.  The  General  Assembly  in  1818  restrained 
the  Mayor  and  City  Council  from  causing  any  unpaved 
street  or  alley  to  be  paved  until  there  had  been  secured, 
not  as  theretofore,  the  consent  of  a  majority  of  the  owners 
of  the  abutting  property,  but  "  the  assent  in  writing  of  the 
proprietors  of  a  majority  of  the  ground  fronting  and  bind- 
ing" on  the  particular  part  paved.*  Subject  to  this  con- 
dition, the  special  assessment  was  to  be  levied  in  the  case 
of  all  paving  and  repaving  embracing  fifty  square  yards.* 

Changes  of  slight  importance  in  the  established  procedure 
were  also  made  in  1823.  Before  proceeding  with  the  pav- 
ing of  any  unpaved  street,  lane  or  alley,  the  City  Commis- 
sioners were  required  to  obtain  not  only  the  consent  of  the 
owners  of  a  major  part  of  abutting  ground,  but  the  appro- 
bation of  the  Mayor  testified  in  writing  on  the  list  of  pro- 
prietors' names,  and  finally  to  give  seven  days'  notice  in 
one  or  more  of  the  newspapers  of  the  city  of  the  fact  of 
such  application,  as  also  of  the  time  and  place  of  their  meet- 
ing for  the  purpose  of  taking  action  thereupon.' 

*  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1827,  ch.  1 17,  sect.  2. 

*  Resolution  of  February  22,  1839,  No.  29. 

*  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1817,  ch.  148. 

*  Ordinance  of  June  5,  1818. 

'  Ordinance  of  March  14,  1823. 

L 


l62  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

The  City  Collector  was  instructed  to  collect  special  as- 
sessments within  sixty  days  from  the  issue  of  the  warrant  of 
assessment  and  to  enforce  payment  of  arrears  by  distress  or 
otherwise  upon  not  less  than  sixty  days'  notice.  Failing 
to  do  so,  he  became  personally  responsible  for  the  payment 
of  the  assessment. 

The  aggregate  cost  of  repaying  streets  was  at  first 
assessed  upon  benefiting  property  owners.  After  1834  the 
repaying  of  any  street  was  undertaken  upon  the  application 
of  the  owners  of  two-thirds  of  the  abutting  property.  One- 
third  of  the  total  expenditure  was  paid  by  the  city  and  the 
remaining  two-thirds  assessed  by  the  City  Commissioner 
upon  abutting  property  in  proportion  to  frontage. 

Street  Reconstruction.  Supplementary  to  the  creation  by 
the  General  Assembly  in  1817  of  the  board  of  nine  com- 
missioners to  lay  oflf  and  extend  streets,  proyision  was  made 
in  each  specific  case  of  opening,  closing,  widening  or  grad- 
ing a  municipal  thoroughfare,  for  the  appointment  by  the 
Mayor  and  City  Council  of  five  assessors  to  ascertain  the 
damages  sustained  by  property  owners  by  reason  of  the  re- 
construction, and  to  return  a  report  thereof  to  the  City 
Register.  The  damages  awarded  were  to  be  paid  out  of  the 
city  treasury  to  the  persons  thereto  entitled  before  any 
actual  work  was  undertaken,  and  appeal  lay  to  the  Balti- 
more County  Court.  Although  no  specific  mention  was 
made,  the  act  doubtless  contemplated  the  leyy  of  a  special 
assessment  upon  property  benefited  by  the  improvement  to 
the  amount  of  the  entire  expenditure  involved;  but  no  in- 
strumentality for  the  continuous  performance  of  this  func- 
tion was  designated." 

In  actual  practice,  the  city  does  not  appear  to  have  taken 
any  direct  part  in  the  assessment  of  benefits  for  street  im- 
provements in  the  manner  provided  by  the  act.  Upon  the 
receipt  of  a  written  application  from  the  proprietors  of  not 
less  than  two-thirds  of  the  property  damaged,  five  assessors 
were  ordinarily  appointed  to  ascertain  the  actual  damages 

^ "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1817,  ch.  148. 


THE   FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    1817-1856       163 

sustained.  Not  until  the  petitioners  had  paid  to  the  City 
Register  this  aggregate  amount,  together  with  the  estimated 
expenses  to  be  incurred  in  effecting  the  improvement,  were 
the  City  Commissioners  at  Hberty  to  proceed  with  the  work. 
There  is  apparently  no  evidence  of  the  municipality  under- 
taking to  allot  the  shares  of  the  assessment  to  be  borne  by 
the  several  property  owners  benefited,  nor  is  it  entirely 
clear  whether  the  assessment  was  distributed  among  all 
such  or  only  among  the  petitioners,. 

Specific  provision  was  made  by  the  General  Assembly  in 
1835  that  in  all  applications  for  street  reconstruction  made 
by  virtue  of  the  act  of  1817  and  signed  by  the  proprietors 
of  a  major  part  of  the  property  liable  to  condemnation,  the 
corporation  should  appoint  three  or  more  commissioners 
to  award  damages  and  assess  benefits  in  the  manner  pre- 
scribed in  specific  statutes.^  The  more  important  street 
extensions  and  reconstructions  were  however  made  not 
under  authority  derived  from  the  general  statute  of  181 7, 
but  from  specific  enabling  acts  passed  by  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  as  noted  above."  The  particular  agency  se- 
lected for  effecting  the  improvement  in  such  cases  was 
vested  with  the  levy  of  the  corresponding  special  assess- 
ment. It  was  ordinarily  a  board  composed  of  three  or  more 
designated  commissioners  or  of  five  assessors  appointed  by 
the  Mayor.  Exceptional  cases  were  presented  by  boards 
consisting  of  seven  assessors  appointed  by  the  Baltimore 
County  Court,'  of  the  City  Commissioners  and  two  or  four 
persons  named  by  the  Baltimore  City  Court,*  of  the  City 
Commissioners  and  two  designated  persons,"  of  seven  com- 
missioners appointed  by  a  board  of  seven  designated  elec- 
tors.' 

The  procedure  was  much  the  same  in  all  cases.     The  as- 

^ "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1834,  ch.  277.    The  statutes  referred  to 
were  ibid.,  1826,  ch.  91;  1827,  ch.  21. 

*  Page  108.  '  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1818,  ch.  198. 

*  Ibid.,  1817,  ch.  12;  1824,  ch.  152. 

*  Ibid.,  1827,  ch.  58.  •  Ibid.,  1827,  ch.  71. 


164  THE   FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

sessing  board,  after  giving  due  notice  in  the  local  news- 
papers, proceeded  to  examine  upon  oath  the  persons  af- 
fected by  the  improvement,  with  a  view  to  determining  the 
damages  sustained.  To  this  amount  was  added  all  actual 
expenditures  incurred,  and  the  aggregate  was  assessed  by 
the  board  upon  all  persons  benefited  by  the  improvement 
"  having  regard  to  all  circumstances."  The  assessment 
list  was  filed  with  the  Register  of  the  city  and  the  specific 
amounts  levied  were  collected  by  the  City  Collector,  paid 
into  the  city  treasury  and  then  disbursed  to  the  proper  re- 
cipients.' Ordinarily  the  action  of  the  assessing  board  was 
final.  In  some  cases  appeal  was  authorized,  either  to  the 
judge  of  the  Baltimore  City  or  County  Court  or  to  a  jury 
empanelled  by  the  Court.  The  aggregate  cost  involved 
was  usually  defrayed  by  the  proceeds  of  the  special  as- 
sessment. In  certain  more  important  improvements,  mu- 
nicipal appropriations  in  aid  were  made.  Thus  in  opening 
Pratt,  South  and  Lombard  streets,  authorized  by  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  in  1817,  one-third  of  the  total  cost  involved 
was  borne  by  the  city.  In  other  cases  appropriations  of 
specific  amount  were  made. 

The  act  of  1841  appointing  the  board  of  Commissioners 
for  Opening  Streets  effected  slight  modification  in  the  levy 
of  the  special  assessment  for  street  reconstruction.  When- 
ever authorized  by  ordinance  to  proceed  with  any  specific 
work,  the  Commissioners  were  required  to  give  at  least 
sixty  days'  notice  in  two  local  newspapers  of  a  time  and 
place  of  meeting  for  the  assessment  of  benefits  and  the 
award  of  damages.  Damages  were  awarded  to  the  amount 
"  of  any  right  or  interest  claimed  in  any  ground  or  improve- 
ments— over  and  above  the  amount  in  value  of  benefit  which 
will  thereby  accrue  to  such  owner,  for  which,  taking  into 

^ "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1823,  ch.  72;  1826,  ch.  202;  1834,  ch.  43.  In 
1837  the  City  Collector  was  authorized  to  receive  from  persons  to 
whom  damages  had  been  awarded  and  upon  whom  benefits  had 
been  assessed,  an  assignment  of  benefits  in  part  discharge  of  the 
amount  assessed,  instead  of  requiring  payment  to  and  disbursement 
by  the  City  Register  in  full  (Ordinance  of  March  3,  1837). 


THE    FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    1817-1856       165 

consideration  all  advantages  and  disadvantages,  such  owner 
ought  to  be  compensated."  The  amount  assessed  included 
the  aggregate  damages  and  the  estimated  expenses  of  re- 
construction, levied  "  on  all  the  ground  and  improvements 
— the  owners  of  which,  as  such,  the  said  commissioner  shall 
decide  and  deem  to  be  benefited — in  just  proportion  ac- 
cording to  the  value  of  the  benefit,  which  in  the  estimation 
of  the  said  commissioners  will  accrue  to  each  owner."  The 
prosecution  of  the  work  was  contingent  upon  the  prelimi- 
nary payment  to  the  persons  entitled  thereto  of  the  amount 
of  damages  awarded,  or  the  written  consent  of  such  per- 
sons to  proceed  in  lieu  thereof.  Upon  the  completion  of 
the  valuation  and  assessment,  the  Commissioners  made  re- 
turn to -the  Register,  and  having  given  due  notice,  sat  for 
ten  days  thereafter  to  hear  appeals  and  to  make  reviews. 
A  final  right  of  appeal  lay  to  the  judges  of  the  Baltimore 
City  Court,  who  were  authorized  to  hear  such  cases  fully 
and  to  summon  a  jury,  in  their  discretion.  The  sums  as- 
sessed upon  the  property  benefited,  if  paid  within  thirty  days 
after  public  notice  had  been  given  by  the  Register,  were  sub- 
ject to  a  three  per  cent,  discount.  Sums  then  unpaid  were 
collected  by  the  City  Collector,  and  paid  over  to  the  per- 
sons entitled  to  receive  them.  In  1843  an  assessment  so 
levied  was  made  a  prior  lien  upon  property,  to  be  collected 
if  necessary  by  distress  and  sale  as  any  other  public  tax.^ 

Wells  and  Pumps.  Minor  changes  were  introduced  after 
1817  in  the  special  assessment  levied  for  the  supply  and 
repair  of  public  wells  and  pumps.  In  February,  1819,  the 
maximum  expenditure  for  this  purpose,  which  might  be 
defrayed  by  municipal  appropriation  instead  of  by  the  levy 
of  a  special  assessment,  was  limited  to  fifty  dollars.*  Sub- 
sequent ordinances  provided  that  the  cost  of  all  repairs 
"  within  "  the  limits  of  direct  taxation  should  be  defrayed 
from  out  the  city  treasury,  and  of  all  "  without,"  by  a  special 

*  Ordinance  of  March  28,  1843,  No.  24. 

*  Ordinance  of  February  25,  1819. 


l66  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY   OF   BALTIMORE 

assessment/  Further  restrictions  were  imposed  by  requir- 
ing the  written  application  of  eight  or  more  of  the  property 
owners  afifected  and  the  approval  of  the  City  Commission- 
ers, for  every  new  well  or  pump  for  which  the  levy  of  a 
special  assessment  was  necessary.  The  contractor  was,  more- 
over, required  to  signify  his  willingness  to  receive  the  pro- 
ceeds of  the  assessment  in  discharge  of  the  work  per- 
formed." 

Miscellaneous  Purposes.  A  special  assessment  was  occa- 
sionally levied  to  defray  the  cost  of  some  particular  im- 
provement, as  in  1817,  for  the  acquisition  by  the  City  Com- 
missioners of  a  piece  of  public  ground  for  the  improvement 
of  the  harbor;*  in  1823  by  the  Port  Wardens  for  the  im- 
provement of  the  water  front;*  in  1832  by  a  board  of  five 
commissioners  appointed  by  the  General  Assembly  for  the 
condemnation  of  a  site  for  a  public  market;"  in  1833  for 
the  repair  of  certain  wharves;'  and  in  1852  for  the  acqui- 
sition of  a  public  square.^ 

Interesting  light  upon  the  broad  use  to  which  the  special 
assessment  as  a  fiscal  device  might  be  put,  as  well  as  upon 
the  early  attitude  of  Baltimore  to  the  street  railway  problem, 
is  thrown  by  the  action  of  the  corporation  in  1832.  On 
April  I,  1832,  the  line  of  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  Railroad 
was  completed  and  in  operation  from  Baltimore  to  Point  of 
Rocks,  a  distance  of  seventy  miles.  In  Baltimore  tracks 
had  been  laid,  under  authority  given  by  the  City  Council, 
parallel  with  the  water  front.'  It  was  believed  that  greater 
facilities  for  travel  and  traffic  would  be  afforded  residents  of 
Baltimore  by  the  construction  of  "  branch  railways  "  within 

^Ordinances  of  February  10,  1820,  and  February  11,  1822;  Resolu- 
tion of  September  2,  1828. 
'  Ordinance  of  March  10,  1819. 
'  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1817,  ch.  85. 

*  Ordinance  of  March  li,  1823. 

°  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"   1831,   ch.  327;   Ordinance  of  March  30, 
1832,  No.  28. 
* "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1832,  ch.  57. 
^  Ordinance  of  July  22,  1852,  No.  71. 

*  Ordinance  of  April  4,  1831.  , 


THE   FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    1817-1856       167 

the  city.  The  president  of  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  Rail- 
road Company  expressed  his  willingness  to  connect  such 
branch  lines,  when  constructed,  with  the  main  stem.  In 
April,  1832,  upon  authority  derived  from  the  General 
Assembly,  the  City  Commissioners  were  directed,  upon  re- 
ceipt of  the  written  application  of  the  owners  of  a  major 
part  of  the  ground  fronting  on  certain  streets,  to  contract 
for  laying  such  tracks.  The  aggregate  cost  involved  was  to 
be  defrayed  by  a  special  assessment  upon  the  owners  of 
property  abutting  on  the  particular  streets,  levied  in  pro- 
portion to  frontage  and  collected  in  the  manner  of  city 
taxes.'  Tracks  were  laid  in  1832  on  Howard,  Patterson 
and  Paca  streets  in  accordance  with  these  provisions,  and 
the  total  expenditure  was  assessed  upon  the  property  bene- 
fited." 

Fees. 

From  the  sources  already  described' — determination  of 
lot  boundaries,  fixture  of  the  city  seal  and  storage  of  gun- 
powder— small  amounts,  which  may  fairly  be  described  as 
fees,  continued  to  trickle  into  the  city  treasury.  These  were 
supplemented  by  an  appreciable  revenue  from  the  municipal 
operation  of  hay  scales,  fish-houses,  dredging  machine,*  and 
from  quarantine,  court  and  inspection  fees. 

In  1818  an  appropriation  was  made  for  the  erection  of  a 
municipal  hay  scales,  and  the  remuneration  of  the  weigher 
was  changed  from  the  perquisites  of  office  to  a  definite  sal- 
ary." Municipal  operation  of  the  scales  proved  unsatis- 
factory and  in  1824  the  Mayor  was  authorized  to  rent  them 

^  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1831,  ch.  252;  Ordinances  of  April  6,  1832, 
No.  41  and  April  3,  1833,  No.  26. 

^  Report  of  the  City  Collector  in  "  Municipal  Reports  "  for  1833, 
p.  98. 

^  See  above,  p.  84. 

*  The  essentially  compulsory  character  of  such  revenues  consti- 
tute them  fees  rather  than  quasi-private  receipts.  The  distinction 
is  however  only  of  theoretic  interest  in  this  connection. 

°  Ordinances  of  April  3  and  September  21,  1818;  supplementary 
to  original  ordinance  of  March  13,  1807. 


l68  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

from  year  to  year  upon  the  best  terms  procurable/  Admin- 
istrative control  of  the  scales  was  however  retained  by  the 
city  until  1838,  when  the  function  was  definitely  assumed 
by  the  state.*  Provision  was  made  in  1822-23  for  the  erec- 
tion of  municipal  fish-houses,  and  for  the  compulsory  in- 
spection and  storage  of  fish  brought  in  any  large  amount 
to  Baltimore.  Keepers  were  appointed  and  authorized  to 
receive  certain  fees,  and  monthly  account  with  the  City 
Register  was  required/  The  fees  received  by  the  City  Com- 
missioners and  Port  Wardens  for  the  hire  of  the  municipal 
dredging  machine  were  in  1839  added  to  the  annual  appro- 
priation for  deepening  and  improving  the  harbor.' 

A  schedule  of  quarantine  fees  to  be  collected  from  in- 
coming vessels  by  the  Harbor  Master  and  paid  over  to  the 
City  Register  was  adopted  in  1823  and  reenacted  in  the 
general  health  ordinance  of  1826.°  Fees  and  charges  for 
judicial  services  were  fixed  by  the  General  Assembly,  and 
constituted  the  remuneration  of  local  court  officials;  after 
1823,  when  in  excess  of  $1500  per  annum,  twenty-five  per 
cent,  of  the  surplus  was  appropriated  by  the  State.'  In  1839 
provision  was  made  for  the  remuneration  of  the  clerk  and 
crier  of  Baltimore  City  Court  by  the  payment  of  definite 
salaries  and  for  the  payment  into  the  city  treasury,  in  sworn 
quarterly  account,  of  all  fees  and  perquisities  hitherto  accru- 
ing to  these  officials.^  After  the  incorporation  of  the  local 
courts  with  the  state  judiciary  in  1851  all  judicial  fees  re- 
verted to  the  state  treasury. 

A  nominal  text-book  and  tuition  fee — $1  per  quarter, 
with  entire  exemption,  if  expedient — was  exacted  of  the 

*  Ordinance  of  January  30,  1824. 

*"Laws  of  Maryland,"  1836,  ch.  238;  1837,  ch.  319. 

*  Ordinances  of  1821,  No.  67,  and  February  4,  1823. 

*  Ordinances  of  May  10,  1839,  No.  54;  April  23,  1849,  No.  46. 

"  Ordinances  of  March  11,  1823,  and  March  24,  1826,  sect.  40;  also 
January  8,  1855,  No.  6. 

• "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1823,  ch.  146. 

^Ordinance  of  April  23,  1839,  No.  42;  but  see  "Laws  of  Mary- 
land," 1838,  ch.  314;  1841  (extra  session),  ch.  40;  Ordinance  of 
March  4,  1852,  No.  18. 


THE   FINANCES   OF  BALTIMORE   CITY,    1817-1856       169 

children  of  residents  of  Baltimore  for  attendance  upon  the 
public  schools.  Higher  charges  were  imposed  upon  non- 
resident pupils.  The  revenue  accruing  from  this  source 
appears  sometimes  to  have  been  paid  direct  to  the  School 
Commissioners,  instead  of  being  covered  into  the  municipal 
treasury  and  then  credited  to  the  account  of  the  "  public 
school  fund."^ 

Fines. 

The  place  of  fines  and  penalties  in  the  municipal  economy 
underwent  no  change  beyond  that  incident  to  the  multipli- 
cation of  municipal  ordinances  and  the  growth  of  the  city. 

In  1818  all  informers,  other  than  municipal  officers,  were 
restricted  from  using  the  name  of  the  Mayor  and  City 
Council  in  suits  brought  for  the  recovery  of  fines  and  for- 
feitures, and  the  city  declined  all  liability  for  costs  thus  in- 
curred. Measures  were  also  taken  to  enforce  payment  by 
delinquent  Justices  of  the  Peace  or  other  municipal  officers 
of  the  city's  share  of  fines  and  forfeitures.^  The  mode  of  col- 
lection was  changed  somewhat  in  1824  by  the  provision  that 
all  information  of  the  breach  of  municipal  ordinances  should 
be  made  before  one  of  the  Justices  of  the  Peace  appointed  to 
receive  the  report  of  the  night  watch,  or  one  of  three  Jus- 
tices selected  by  the  Mayor,  and  that  a  monthly  return  of  all 
warrants  issued  by  the  Justices  to  the  city  bailiffs  on  such 
information,  should  be  made  to  the  City  Register."  In 
1838,  the  High  Constable  and  his  deputies  were  constituted 
ex-oMcio  informers  against  all  breaches  of  municipal  ordi- 
nances, and  no  part  of  municipal  fines  was  allowed  for 
service  thus  rendered.* 

Quasi-Private  Receipts. 

Wharves.  A  graduated  tariff  of  wharfage  charges  was 
established  in  1819,  somewhat  lower  than  the  schedule  then 

^  See,    for   example,   "  Report   of   the    Commissioners    of   Public 
Schools  "  of  December  31,  1853,  p.  232. 
^  Ordinance  of  June  i,  1818. 

*  Ordinance  of  February  28,  1824. 

*  Ordinance  of  May  22,  1838,  No.  45. 


170  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

in  force.  Charges  were  collected  daily  by  the  Harbor  Mas- 
ter, and  monthly  return  was  made  to  the  City  Register/ 
This  tariff  was  re-enacted  without  change  in  the  codification 
of  municipal  ordinances  in  1826  and  in  1838.  In  1827  the 
corporation  was  again  specifically  authorized  to  levy  upon 
all  vessels  landing,  receiving  or  transporting  other  than 
Maryland  products  at  city  wharves,  local  tonnage  charges 
of  "  reasonable  amount,"  and  statutes  in  conflict  were  re- 
pealed/ This  power  was  supplemented  in  the  following 
year  by  authority  to  recover  in  the  name  of  the  corporation 
charges  so  imposed/  A  local  tonnage  duty  of  two  cents 
per  ton  upon  all  vessels  of  sixty  or  more  tons  arriving  at 
the  port  of  Baltimore — originally  authorized  in  1791  and 
ratified  by  successive  acts  of  the  U.  S.  Congress — was  re- 
imposed  by  the  city  in  April,  1830.  The  Collector  of  the 
Port  (the  federal  customs  officer)  was  authorized  to  collect 
the  tonnage  charge  from  all  vessels  entering  at  the  Custom 
House,  and  to  retain  ten  per  cent,  of  the  proceeds  as  a  com- 
mission. Upon  all  other  vessels,  the  duty  was  levied  by  the 
Harbor  Masters;  in  the  case  of  vessels  arriving  more  fre- 
quently, it  was  levied  but  once  a  month. 

In  1838  and  1839  new  schedules  of  wharfage  charges 
were  adopted  by  the  corporation,  appreciably  higher  than 
those  before  in  force.  The  result  was  marked  dissatisfac- 
tion throughout  the  state,  and  in  March,  1842,  in  "  an  act 
to  prevent  the  collection  of  excessive  wharfage  in  the  city 
of  Baltimore,"  both  ordinances  were  declared  inoperative, 
and  the  municipality  was  prohibited  from  imposing  higher 
charges  than  those  existing  before  1839.* 

Wharfage  dues  were  collected  after  1839  by  three  an- 
nually appointed  Harbor  Masters,  to  each  of  whom  a  des- 
ignated territory  was  assigned/  Their  compensation  was 
fixed  at  ten  per  cent,  of  the  tonnage  charge  and  twenty  per 

^  Ordinances  of  March  30,  1819,  and  February  27,  1822. 

* "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1827,  ch.  162. 

'Ibid.,  1828,  ch.  162.  *Ibid.,  1841,  ch.  311. 

■*  Ordinance  of  April  19,  1839.  In  1840  the  number  of  Harbor 
Masters  was  increased  to  four;  in  1846-47  the  power  of  the  Mayor 
to  regulate  wharfage  dues  was  reaffirmed. 


THE   FINANCES    OF    BALTIMORE    CITY,    1817-1856       I/I 

cent  of  all  other  duties  collected;  but  the  aggregate  com- 
missions were  divided  equally  among  the  several  incum- 
bents/ 

Markets.  The  procedure  in  vogue  with,  respect  to  the 
rental  of  market  stalls  and  shambles  was  extended  to  the 
additional  market-houses  erected.  In  1822  the  clerks  of 
the  markets  were  directed  to  present  annual  reports  to  the 
Mayor  of  the  number  of  stalls  rented,  the  amount  of  rentals 
and  kindred  information."  In  the  market  code  of  1826,  as 
already  noted,  detailed  schedules  of  stall  rentals  were  pre- 
scribed and  the  clerks  were  required  to  account  monthly 
with  the  City  Register  for  all  funds  received.' 

The  rental  of  stalls  in  the  usual  manner  in  Belair  Market 
being  represented  in  1823  as  an  obstacle  to  their  speedy 
occupation,  the  Mayor  was  authorized  to  offer  at  public  sale 
two  and  three  year  leases  thereof.*  In  more  or  less  modi- 
fied form,  this  method  was  frequently  employed  thereafter, 
even  to  the  point  of  leasing  stalls  in  perpetuity  or  for  ninety- 
nine  years,  subject  to  the  payment  of  specific  annual  rentals 
and  charges. 

Municipal  Property.  The  city  was  in  irregular  receipt  of 
a  small  revenue  from  the  lease  and  sale  of  municipal  prop- 
erty not  utilized  for  public  purposes  and  originally  ac- 
quired by  purchase,  by  the  extension  of  the  water  front,  or 
by  the  dispossession  of  delinquent  tax-payers.  Originally 
the  disposition  of  each  piece  of  municipal  property  was 
prescribed  by  a  specific  ordinance,  and  the  proceeds  were 
ordinarily  covered  into  the  city  treasury  for  general  mu- 
nicipal purposes.  Gradually  this  function  was  relegated  to 
the  Commissioners  of  Finance  and  the  accruing  revenue 
was  utilized  in  aid  of  the  annual  interest  upon  the  funded 
debt  of  the  city,  and  in  the  accumulation  of  a  sinking  fund." 

Viewed  as  immediately  productive  investments,  the  muni- 

^  Ordinance  of  February  27,  1840,  No.  5. 

*  Resolution  of  March  21,  1822. 
"  Ordinance  of  April  7,  1826. 

*  Resolution  of  March  17,  1823. 

*  Ordinance  of  April  25,  1850. 


172  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

cipal  loans  and  subscriptions  of  Baltimore  to  the  internal 
improvement  projects  were  practical  failures.  The  only 
important  dividends  realized  were  from  the  Baltimore  and 
Ohio  Railroad/  and  even  there  the  aggregate  receipts  were 
far  less  than  the  corresponding  municipal  interest  payments. 
By  1857  all  hope  of  securing  any  income  from  the  city's 
subscriptions  to  the  Baltimore  and  Susquehanna  Railroad 
Company  and  from  the  Susquehanna  Canal  Company  had 
been  apparently  abandoned.^ 

Lotteries.  No  municipal  or  quasi-municipal  lottery  was 
authorized  after  181 5.  The  drawings  of  the  state  lottery 
and  of  many  private  lotteries  took  place  in  Baltimore,  but 
did  not  contribute  directly  to  the  municipal  treasury.  In 
1839  the  General  Assembly  appointed  six  designated  per- 
sons as  Commissioners  of  Lotteries  to  raise  the  sum  of 
$150,000  for  the  purpose  of  constructing  an  armory  and 
town-hall  in  Baltimore  and  for  rebuilding  and  improving 
the  Hanover  Market-house.  The  Commissioners  so  ap- 
pointed were  vested  with  power  to  effect  these  im- 
provements, provided  the  assent  of  the  Mayor  and  City 
Council  should  be  given  to  the  act.'  The  measure  was 
promptly  confirmed  by  the  corporation  with  the  express 
conditions  that  the  board  of  Commissioners  satisfy  the 
Mayor  of  the  adequacy  of  their  resources,  and  that  the  city 
assume  no  liability  for  expenditures  incurred  in  the  course 
of  the  work.* 

^  The  dividends  paid  by  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  Railroad  from 
1827  to  1853  were  as  follows:  1831,  ^  per  cent.;  1832,  January,  X 
per  cent;  1832,  July,  54  per  cent.;  1833,  ^  per  cent;  1835,  1%  per 
cent;  1840,  2  per  cent.;  1841,  2  per  cent.;  1843,  2  per  cent;  1844, 
2>^  per  cent.;  1846,  3  per  cent,  (of  which  ^  in  scrip);  1847,  3 
per  cent,  (scrip);  1848,  3^  per  cent,  (scrip);  1849,  5  per  cent, 
(scrip);  1850,  7  per  cent,  (scrip);  1851,  7  per  cent,  (scrip);  1852, 
7  per  cent,  (scrip);  1853,  3  per  cent,  (scrip).  See  Reizenstein, 
"  The  Economic  History  of  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  Railroad. 
1827-1853,"  in  Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies  in  Historical  and 
Political  Science,  Fifteenth  Series,  VII-VIII. 

*  Cf.  Register's  Statement,  January  30,  1857;  cf.  below,  p.  198. 
'  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1838,  ch.  323. 

*  Ordinance  of  April  20,  1839,  No.  39.  In  1840  the  net  sum  to  be 
raised  was  increased  to  $225,000  ("  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1839,  ch.  52). 


THE   FINANCES   OF   BALTIMORE   CITY,    1817-1856      I73 

Water  Supply.  The  municipal  assumption  of  the  func- 
tion of  water  supply  was  consummated  in  the  summer  of 
1854/  The  tariff  of  charges  exacted  by  the  private  corpo- 
ration was  retained  by  the  city  until  June,  1855,  when  a 
new  and  lower  schedule  was  introduced.''  In  January,  1856, 
Mayor  Samuel  Hinks  recommended  upon  the  score  both 
of  economy  and  equity,  the  adoption  of  a  general  water 
rate  to  be. levied  upon  all  houses  within  the  water  belt,  in- 
stead of  the  system  of  graduated  rentals  then  in  force."  The 
proposal  was  apparently  neglected,  only  to  be  revived  at 
periodic  intervals  during  the  next  forty  years.  The  opera- 
tions of  the  Water  Board  for  the  first  fourteen  months  of 
its  existence,  ending  January  i,  1856,  showed  an  appreci- 
able net  balance  in  favor  of  the  department. 

Gifts  and  Subsidies.  Voluntary  or  gratuitous  revenues 
were  occasionally  received  by  the  municipal  treasury.  Un- 
der this  category  should  be  grouped  the  gift  of  sites  of 
public  markets  and  buildings,*  the  bequest  in  1839  of  cer- 
tain annuities  for  the  relief  of  the  poor  of  the  twelfth  ward 
of  the  city,"  and  the  transfer  to  the  public  school  fund  of 
the  property  of  intestates  dying  in  the  city  of  Baltimore.' 

Of  greater  practical  importance  in  the  municipal  budget 
was  the  regular  appropriation  of  certain  state  revenues  in 
aid  of  specific  municipal  funds.  Thus,  the  proceeds  of  the 
local  tax  on  auction  receipts  were  diverted  by  the  General 
Assembly  in  1827  to  the  state  treasury.  But  of  these  pro- 
ceeds the  sum  of  $20,000  was  annually  appropriated  to  the 
corporation,  to  be  expended  exclusively  in  deepening  and 

*  See  above,  p.  119. 

*  Resolutions  of  June  16,  1855,  No.  159,  and  April  3,  1856,  No.  loi. 
'  Mayor's  Message  of  January,  1856,  p.  12. 

*  Ordinances  of  April  10,  1818,  and  February  25,  1819.  Resolu- 
tions of  March  20,  1828;  April  16,  1835,  No.  67;  March  11  and  21, 
April  13,  1844,  Nos.  54,  64,  125. 

'  Ordinance  of  April  23,  1839,  No.  48. 

*  The  first  provision  of  this  kind  seems  to  have  been  made  in 
1815.  In  1839  such  revenues  were  diverted  to  the  public  school 
fund  of  Baltimore  County,  but  were  again  restored  in  1846  ("  Laws 
of  Maryland,"  1814,  ch.  131;  1838,  ch.  407;  1845,  ch.  1203). 


174  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

widening  the  harbor/  Similarly,  after  1827,  certain  extra- 
ordinary revenues  accruing  to  the  school  fund  of  the  state 
were  apportioned  among  the  counties  and  Baltimore  City, 
and  the  share  of  the  city  was  credited  to  the  municipal 
school  fund. 

In  1850  John  McDonogh,  a  wealthy  merchant  resident 
in  New  Orleans  but  born  and  educated  in  Baltimore,  died, 
leaving  the  bulk  of  a  large  fortune  to  be  devoted  by  the 
cities  of  New  Orleans  and  Baltimore  to  the  education  of 
the  poor.  The  control  of  the  estate  (valued  in  1855  at 
$2,272,406.05)  was  entrusted,  in  accordance  with  the  terms 
of  the  bequest,  to  six  commissioners,  of  whom  three  were 
appointed  by  Baltimore  and  three  by  New  Orleans.  The 
cumbersome  plan  of  administration  prescribed  by  Mr.  Mc- 
Donogh's  will  was  soon  found  impracticable,  and  in  1857 
a  partition  of  the  estate  between  the  two  cities  was  decreed. 
Owing  to  the  overestimate  of  the  original  appraisement  and 
the  persistent  litigation  connected  with  the  trust,  the  share 
realized  by  Baltimore  was  in  i860  only  $579,715.53.  The 
public  school  system  of  the  city  being  then  in  successful 
operation,  the  entire  fund  was  set  apart  for  the  establish- 
ment of  a  farm  school  for  poor  boys.* 

^  Laws  of  Maryland,  1827,  ch.  iii;  Resolution  of  March  6,  1834, 
No.  34;  cf.  above,  p.  156. 
*  William  Allen,  "  Life  and  Work  of  John  McDonogh,"  pp.  75-92. 


CHAPTER  IV 

MUNICIPAL  INDEBTEDNESS. 

The  most  striking  feature  of  the  financial  development  of 
Baltimore  from  1817  to  1856  was  the  growth  of  municipal 
indebtedness.  The  genesis  of  the  funded  debt  occurred  in 
the  decade  from  1817  to  1826  in  the  form  of  small  loans  for 
various  municipal  purposes.  The  fever  for  internal  im- 
provements ran  full  course  in  the  period  from  1827  to  1843, 
and  left  the  city  burdened  with  a  modern  funded  debt.  The 
years  from  1843  to  1850  witnessed  no  considerable  increase, 
but  thereafter,  by  the  issue  of  direct  municipal  loans  and  the 
extension  of  municipal  credit  in  further  aid  of  works  of  in- 
ternal improvement,  the  funded  debt  was  practically  doubled 
and  a  large  "  guaranteed  debt "  was  incurred.  The  issue  of 
corporate  stock  for  the  purchase  of  a  water  plant  in  1854 
foreshadowed  the  extensive  use  of  municipal  borrowing  for 
public  improvements  in  the  succeeding  period  of  municipal 
history. 

The  history  of  municipal  indebtedness  within  the  forty 
years  is  essentially  a  narrative  of  successive  funded  and 
''  guaranteed  "  issues.  The  loans  were  few  in  number,  of 
large  amount,  and  often  issued  to  the  beneficiary,  who  in 
turn  negotiated  them.  In  the  absence  of  any  important 
provision  for  amortization,  the  problem  of  debt  administra- 
tion was  accordingly  simple.  Floating  indebtedness  played 
no  considerable  part  in  municipal  finances  during  the  period 
considered. 

Growth  of  Indebtedness. 

Origin  of  Funded  Debt.  The  genesis  of  the  funded  debt  of 
Baltimore  is  found  in  an  ordinance  of  June  10,  1817,  "  for 
the  creation  of  a  six  per  cent,  stock  of  the  City  of  Balti- 

(175) 


176  THE    FINANCIAL    HISTORY    OF    BALTIMORE 

more."  The  ordinance  authorized  the  issue,  primarily  for 
the  purpose  of  acquiring  a  municipal  dumping  ground,  of 
six  per  cent,  stock  in  certificates  of  one  hundred  dollars  each 
with  interest  payable  quarterly.  The  certificates  were  re- 
deemable at  the  pleasure  of  the  corporation  and  were  trans- 
ferable at  the  Mayor's  office  in  person  or  by  attorney.  The 
faith  of  the  corporation  and  all  corporate  property  were 
pledged  for  the  payment  of  interest  and  principal.  Some 
$40,000  appeared  to  have  been  issued  under  the  provisions 
of  the  ordinance.^  On  August  15,  1817,  a  supplementary 
ordinance  authorized  a  loan  from  the  banks  or  from  indi- 
viduals of  the  city  of  a  sum  not  exceeding  $30,000,  to  be 
expended  in  repairing  damages  caused  by  late  heavy  rains. 
The  Mayor  and  the  presidents  of  the  two  Branches  of  the 
City  Council  were  authorized  to  issue  stock  in  prescribed 
form,  or — at  the  option  of  the  persons  making  the  loan — ^to 
give  the  Mayor's  note  for  a  corresponding  amount.  Finally, 
on  October  5  of  the  same  year,  the  Mayor  and  the  two 
Council  presidents  were  authorized  to  issue  stock  in  pay- 
ment, wholly  or  in  part,  of  the  amount  due  the  banks  of  the 
city.  Provision  was  made  that  should  the  banks  decline  to 
receive  the  stock  at  or  above  par,  it  should  be  sold  to  indi- 
viduals without  discount  and  the  proceeds  devoted  to  the 
payment  of  the  bank  indebtedness.  Six  per  cent,  stock  to 
the  amount  of  some  $30,000  was  issued  under  this  ordi- 
nance, swelling  the  total  funded  indebtedness  of  the  city 
at  the  close  of  1817  to  nearly  $100,000. 

It  is  noteworthy  that  this  entire  indebtedness  was  incur- 
red without  any  specific  authorization  to  issue  municipal 
stock,  either  in  the  city  charter  or  in  a  subsequent  enabling 
act  of  the  legislature.  The  municipality  seems  simply  to 
have  assumed  the  power  from  the  provision  of  the  charter 

*  See  the  tabular  statement  of  the  successive  issues  of  city  stock, 
prepared  by  the  Register  for  the  City  Council  in  1850  and  included 
in  the  Municipal  Reports  of  that  year.  Statistics  relating  to  the 
early  growth  of  the  funded  debt  of  Baltimore  must  unfortunately 
be  derived  in  great  part  from  this  not  entirely  trustworthy  table. 


THE   FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    1817-1856       17/ 

permitting  the  corporation  to  purchase  and  hold  real,  per- 
sonal and  mixed  property,  and  to  dispose  of  the  same  for 
the  benefit  of  the  city/  Specific  authority  to  issue  nego- 
tiable securities  or  to  borrow  money  was  first  conferred  by 
the  General  Assembly  in  the  important  **  Act  relating  to 
the  City  of  Baltimore,"  passed  in  February,  1818.  Section 
vii  of  this  measure  empowered  the  Mayor  and  City  Coun- 
cil to  borrow  money  upon  the  credit  of  the  corporation  or 
to  issue  stock  to  any  amount  not  exceeding  one  million 
dollars  in  certificates  of  not  less  than  one  hundred  dollars, 
"  for  the  purpose  of  effecting  any  great  or  permanent  im- 
provement." Maryland  banks  were  authorized  to  lend 
money  to  the  corporation,  and  to  purchase,  hold  or  dispose 
of  its  stock.  But  an  appreciable  funded  debt  had  already 
been  contracted,  as  has  been  seen,  prior  to  the  passage  of 
this  act.  Further,  the  funding  of  floating  indebtedness, 
concerning  which  nothing  was  said,  and  the  issue  of  stock 
for  municipal  improvements,  neither  "  great  nor  perma- 
nent," continued  periodically.  In  short,  the  early  growth 
as  well  as  the  actual  inception  of  the  funded  indebtedness 
of  Baltimore  involved  the  exercise  of  the  implied  or  inci- 
dental, rather  than  the  expressed  power  of  a  municipal 
corporation  to  borrow  money  and  to  issue  negotiable  secur- 
ities.^ 

The  grant  of  specific  power  to  the  corporation  to  incur  a 
funded  debt  resulted  in  neither  alarming  nor  continued  use 
of  municipal  credit.  In  1818,  successive  issues  of  stock 
were  authorized  in  aid  of  city  revenue,  for  the  opening  of 
Pratt  and  South  streets,  for  funding  the  military  debt  and 
for  minor  purposes.  The  sum  of  $242,300.10,  considerably 
less  than  the  maximum  amount  authorized,  appears  to  have 
been  actually  issued.'  Between  1819  and  1827,  the  increase 
of  the  funded  debt  was  inconsiderable,  the  only  issue  of 
importance  being  $80,000  in  1824,  in  payment  of  current 

*  See  preamble  to  Ordinance  of  June  10,  1817. 

*  Cf.  Dillon,  "  Municipal  Corporations,"  §117  ef  seq. 

*  See  tabular  statement  in  "  City  Register's  Report "  for  1850. 

H 


178  THE   FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

municipal  obligations.  Ordinances  were  passed  from  time 
to  time  authorizing  stock  issues  of  slight  amount  for  varied 
purposes — probably  in  face  of  a  depleted  treasury;  but  re- 
course was  not  often  had  to  the  power  so  conferred.  In 
1821  the  issue  of  $340,000  of  five  per  cent,  stock  was  author- 
ized for  refunding  the  older  six  per  cent,  loans.^  In  1827 
the  aggregate  indebtedness  of  the  city  was  less  than  $500,- 
000,  and  of  this  more  than  three-fourths  was  in  five  per 
cent,  stock. 

Era  of  Internal  Improvements.  The  mad  fever  for  internal 
improvements  that  swept  over  the  United  States  in  the 
second  quarter  of  the  century  ran  its  full  course  in  Mary- 
land. The  results  of  the  reckless  use  of  public  credit  were, 
in  the  state's  finances,  the  accumulation  of  a  large  funded 
debt,  resort  to  direct  taxation,  and  perilous  approach  to 
repudiation.  In  the  finances  of  Baltimore  the  most  char- 
acteristic effect  was  the  creation  of  a  modern  municipal 
debt  with  its  burdens  and  problems.  In  1842  the  City 
Register  noted  that,  "  a  few  years  since  .  .  .  our  entire 
issue  of  stock  was  less  than  a  million,  and  the  other  engage- 
ments of  the  city  were  very  limited,  .  .  .  but  we  now  have 
fourteen  different  issues  of  stock,  amounting  to  upwards  of 
five  milHons."  This  transformation  was  essentially  the  re- 
sult of  bold  extension  of  municipal  credit  in  aiding  the  con- 
struction of  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  Railroad,  and  to  a  less 
degree,  that  of  the  Baltimore  and  Susquehanna  Railroad 
and  the  Susquehanna  Canal. 

(Baltimore  and  Ohio  Railroad).  Baltimore  formed  a 
natural  market  for  the  agricultural  products  of  the  West. 
Active  communication  had  long  been  maintained  with  that 
region — in  early  days  by  pack  horses,  later  by  long  wagon 
trains  that  traversed  the  northern  turnpikes  as  far  as  the 
Ohio  River.  The  introduction  of  steamboats  upon  the 
navigable  waters  of  the  West  displaced  this  means  of  trans- 
portation. Trade  was  diverted  to  other  centres,  and  the 
commercial  importance  of  Baltimore  was  threatened.    Pub- 

^  Ordinance  of  November  9,  1821,  No.  59. 


THE    FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE   CITY,    1817-1856       I79 

lie-spirited  citizens  immediately  began  an  agitaton  for  im- 
proved means  of  communication  with  the  West.  A  plan 
for  the  organization  of  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  Railroad 
Company  was  drawn  up,  and  an  act  of  incorporation  was 
secured  from  the  General  Assembly  of  Maryland  on  Feb- 
ruary 28,  1827,  nine  days  after  the  detailed  project  had  first 
been  made  public/ 

The  capital  stock  of  the  new  corporation  was  fixed  at 
three  million  dollars,  of  which  one  million  was  reserved  by 
the  state  of  Maryland  and  five  hundred  thousand  by  the  city 
of  Baltimore.  Payment  for  stock  was  to  be  made  at  the 
rate  of  one  per  cent,  at  the  time  of  subscription ;  thereafter  in 
installments  as  required  by  the  directorate,  provided  that 
not  more  than  one-third  of  the  total  amount  subscribed 
could  be  called  for  in  any  one  year.  Baltimore  was  to  be 
represented  by  two,  and  Maryland  by  four  directors  in  ad- 
dition to  the  twelve  chosen  by  the  stockholders.^  The  city 
promptly  subscribed  the  maximum  amount  authorized,  and 
made  provision  by  appropriation  and  loan  for  the  payment 
of  the  early  installments."  In  further  aid  of  the  railroad, 
the  city  agreed  in  1830  to  make  anticipatory  payments  to 
the  full  amount  of  its  subscription,  upon  evidence  that  thirty 
per  cent,  of  the  par  value  of  all  shares  subscribed  had  been 
paid  by  other  stockholders.  To  this  end  the  Commis- 
sioners of  Finance  were  empowered  to  issue  five  per  cent, 
city  stock  in  such  amounts  as  might  be  demanded,  not  ex- 
ceeding $70,000  in  any  one  month.  Interest  was  to  be  re- 
ceived by  the  city  upon  the  amount  advanced  in  excess  of 
the  quota  called  for  from  other  stockholders.*  The  Com- 
pany availed  itself  of  the  privilege  conferred  by  the  ordi- 

^  For  further  details  see  Reizenstein,  "  The  Economic  History  of 
the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  Railroad,  1827- 1853,"  in  Johns  Hopkins 
University  Studies  in  Historical  and  Political  Science,  Fifteenth  Series, 
Nos.  VII- VIII. 

'  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1826,  ch.  123. 

•  Resolution  of  March  20,  1827;  Ordinances  of  June  26,  1828,  No. 
3;  March  2,  1829,  No.  15. 

*  Ordinance  of  June  25,  1830. 


l80  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

nance,  and  in  1833  the  Commissioners  of  Finance  advertised 
the  necessary  loans.^ 

In  December,  1834,  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  Railroad  was 
completed  to  Harper's  Ferry  and  preparation  was  made  for 
its  further  extension  westward,  to  Cumberland,  Wheeling 
and  Pittsburg.  The  Company  had  at  this  time  completely 
exhausted    its    own   financial    resources.     Accordingly,    in 

1835,  aid  was  sought  from  both  state  and  city.  The  re- 
sponse of  the  city  was  cordial  in  the  extreme.  In  1836  the 
municipality  was  authorized  to  make  an  additional  sub- 
scription to  the  stock  of  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  Railroad 
Company,  to  an  amount  not  exceeding  three  million  dollars, 
to  borrow  money  and  to  impose  taxes  for  this  purpose, 
and  to  appoint  an  additional  representative  upon  the  direc- 
torate of  the  Company  for  every  five  thousand  shares  ($100 
par  value  per  share)  of  stock  thus  subscribed.'  In  availing 
itself  of  this  authority,  the  municipality  simply  added  the 
provision  that  the  subscription  should  be  made  in  install- 
ments of  not  more  than  one  million  of  dollars  in  any  one 
year.  The  city  stock  was  to  bear  interest  at  six  per  cent., 
and  to  be  redeemable  before  July  i,  1890.'  Any  premium 
accruing  from  its  sale  was  appropriated  to  the  sinking  fund, 
less  a  commission  of  three-tenths  of  one  per  cent,  of  the 
sum  negotiated,  which  was  allowed  as  compensation  to  the 
Commissioners  of  Finance.* 

The  acute  depression  of  financial  interests  throughout  the 
country  subsequent  upon  the  crisis  of  1837  made  difficult 
the  sale  of  any  considerable  part  of  the  stock  thus  author- 
ized. The  city  met  the  early  calls  for  installments  upon  its 
subscription  by  loans  from  local  banks,  aggregating  $500,- 
000  and  secured  by  deposits  of  stock.  After  the  bank  crash 
of  1839  and  the  general  suspension  of  specie  payments  by 
the  banks  south  of  New  York  in  the  autumn  of  that  year, 

*  Mayor's  Message  of  January  6,  1834. 
^ "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1835,  ch.  127. 

•Resolution  of  March  17,  1836,  No.  40;  Ordinance  of  April  26, 

1836,  No.  37. 

*  Ordinances  of  April  12,  1837,  No.  2>7,  and  May  19,  1838,  No.  21. 


THE   FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE   CITY,    1817-1856       181 

it  became  practically  impossible  to  obtain  further  loans 
upon  any  terms  or  to  dispose  of  corporate  stock,  save  at 
ruinous  sacrifice.  The  fiscal  exigencies  of  the  Company 
growing  more  pronounced,  recourse  was  had  to  a  novel  and 
interesting  device — proposed  by  the  Company  and  ac- 
quiesced in  without  formal  action  by  the  city — for  making 
the  municipal  subscription  immediately  available. 

The  Baltimore  and  Ohio  Railroad  Company  received  city 
stock  at  par  in  payment  of  future  installments  upon  the 
$3,000,000  subscription.  In  so  far  as  possible,  this  stock 
was  used  in  direct  discharge  of  obligations  incurred  in  con- 
struction. For  smaller  amounts  and  for  current  expendi- 
tures, "  stock  orders  "  were  issued  in  denominations  of  $ioo, 
$5>  $3>  $2,  and  $i,  fundable  in  stock  at  par  in  amounts  of  not 
less  than  $ioo,  but  designed  as  a  local  medium  of  ex- 
change. For  their  ultimate  security,  stock  to  the  full 
amount  of  the  orders  issued  was  deposited  with  two  com- 
missioners in  trust  for  the  holders,  and  to  add  to  their  ac- 
ceptability the  Company  received  them  in  discharge  of  all 
debts/    The  profit  arising  from  the  circulation  of  these 

*  The  economic  character  of  the  "  stock  orders  "  is  described,  in 
favorable  light,  in  the  Fourteenth  Annual  Report  of  the  President 
and  Board  of  Directors  to  the  Stockholders  of  the  Baltimore  and 
Ohio  Railroad  Company  (1840) :  "  The  orders  do  not  promise  to 
pay  money,  nor,  indeed,  are  they,  in  any  respect,  promissory  in  their 
character.  They  confer  an  absolute  authority  for  the  transfer  of 
City  Stock,  and  finally  cancel  the  obligation  for  which  they  are 
received  in  satisfaction.  From  the  nature  of  the  case,  they  cannot 
exceed  in  amount  the  City  subscription  and  the  stock  actually 
transferred  to  the  Commissioners  in  trust  for  the  holders.  They, 
in  fact,  represent  City  certificates,  though  in  smaller  denominations; 
and,  in  the  requisite  sums,  may  be  funded  and  converted  into  coin 
or  bank  paper,  at  the  pleasure  of  the  holder.  They  are,  therefore, 
not  liable  to  the  risk,  or  any  other  objection  to  which  irresponsible 
paper  issues,  professing  to  pay  money,  are  exposed;  and  every 
citizen,  liable  to  the  payment  of  a  city  tax,  has  an  immediate  in- 
terest in  maintaining  their  value.  Nor  need  the  purpose  or  utility 
of  these  orders  cease  after  the  resumption  of  specie  payments.  On 
the  contrary,  they  would,  in  that  event,  if  they  should  be  employed 
for  such  purpose,  prove  valuable  auxiliaries  in  aiding  the  operations 
of  the  banks;  they  would,  in  no  respect,  impair  the  soundness  of 
the  regular  currency,  but  might  be  advantageously  maintained  in 
general  credit." 


l82  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF    BALTIMORE 

*■'  stock  orders  "  accrued  to  the  city.  In  March,  1840,  the 
Company  agreed  that  city  stock  held  in  trust  for  the  redemp- 
tion of  the  orders  should  bear  interest  from  the  date  of 
funding  and  not  from  the  date  of  issue.  A  year  later,  the 
Register  of  the  city  was  authorized  by  resolution  of  the 
Mayor  and  City  Council  to  receive  them  in  payment  of  all 
city  dues  and  taxes  and  to  pay  them  out  again  in  discharge 
of  the  various  demands  upon  the  city  treasur}\^  The  saving 
of  interest  by  the  absorption  of  orders  into  local  circulation 
was  for  several  years  important.  A  proportion  of  city  stock 
was  utilized  by  the  Company  in  direct  payment  of  its  obli- 
gations, and  another  part  was  employed  in  funding  orders 
presented  for  redemption.  By  far  the  largest  amount  of  the 
outstanding  stock,  however,  was  held  as  a  non-interest 
bearing  collateral  against  the  orders  in  circulation. 

For  a  brief  period  the  scheme  worked  successfully.  The 
suspension  of  specie  payments  by  the  banks  and  the  with- 
drawal of  city  scrip,  described  below,'  gave  a  place  for  a 
local  currency  of  small  denominations.  The  orders  were 
received  by  contractors  in  payment  for  materials  and  ser- 
vices, were  distributed  among  laborers  and  tradesmen,  and 
continued  to  circulate  freely  in  the  channels  of  retail  trade. 
In  October,  1840,  stock  orders  to  the  amount  of  $515,000 
had  been  issued  and  distributed, as  follows:  100  of  $100  each; 
6,800  of  $5  each;  13,000  of  $3  each;  39,000  of  $2  each;  and 
354,000  of  $1  each.  Of  this  entire  amount,  only  the  $10,000 
in  $100  denominations  had  been  funded,  and  the  credit  of 
the  orders  in  circulation  was  good.'  Encouraged  by  these 
results,  the  Company  proceeded  during  the  next  twelve 
months  to  issue  stock  orders  in  large  amounts  to  defray 
the  heavy  expenditures  entailed  by  the  extension  of  the 
road   to   Cumberland.      In   October,    1841,   the   aggregate 

*  Resolution  of  February  9,  1841,  No.  9;  also  Report  of  Commis- 
sioners of  Finance,  January,  1841. 

'  Page  189. 

•  Fourteenth  Annual  Report  of  the  President  and  Directors  to  the 
Stockholders  of  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  Railroad  (October,  1840). 


THE   FINANCES    OF    BALTIMORE   CITY,    1817-1856       183 

amount  of  outstanding  orders  was  $1,449,051.  As  a  medium 
of  exchange,  the  orders  had  now  suffered  marked  depre- 
ciation, and  were  becoming  an  instrument  of  oppression  to 
the  wage-earner  and  an  element  of  disturbance  in  local 
trade.  The  Company  continued  to  justify  the  issue  of  the 
orders,  but  their  uninterrupted  depreciation  was  an  irre- 
sistible argument  contra^  Early  in  1842,  the  orders,  then 
outstanding  to  the  amount  of  $1,500,000,  "had  reached  a 
depreciation  which  effectually  excluded  them  from  the  oper- 
ations of  trade." "  The  ordinance  permitting  them  to  be 
used  in  payment  of  municipal  taxes  and  dues  was  repealed, 
and  the  orders,  by  funding  into  stock  and  by  outright  pur- 
chase, soon  disappeared  from  circulation.* 

The  history  of  the  stock  orders  repeats  the  familiar  ex- 
perience of  an  inconvertible  currency  issued  to  the  point  of 
redundancy.  At  first  emitted  in  moderate  amount  upon  a 
market  suffering  from  monetary  stringency,  the  orders  cir- 
culated easily.  The  action  of  the  city  in  making  them  re- 
ceivable for  local  dues  opened  a  new  outlet  and  maintained 
their  credit  for  a  period.  Increasing  issue,  in  no  degree  ad- 
justed to  the  currency  needs  of  the  community,  brought  de- 
preciation, until  with  the  withdrawal  of  a  quasi-tender  qual- 
ity, the  notes  lost  all  acceptability  and  soon  disappeared  from 
circulation.  It  is  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  determine 
the  influence  of  the  issue  of  stock  orders  upon  the  finances 
of  Baltimore.  Leaving  aside  the  injury  done  the  economic 
interests  of  the  city  by  a  mass  of  inconvertible  depreciating 
currency  of  small  denominations,  it  can  hardly  be  doubted 
that  the  credit  of  Baltimore  suffered  from  the  presence  of 
discredited  paper  fundable  in  its  own  obligations.  On  the 
other  hand,  any  attempt  to  realize  funds  by  direct  sale  of 
municipal  securities  must  have  meant,  with  prevailing  finan- 

*  Fifteenth  Annual  Report  of  the  President  and  Directors  to  the 
Stockholders  of  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  Railroad  Company  (Oc- 
tober, 1841). 

*  Mayor's  Message  of  January  16,  1843. 

*  Resolution  of  March  17,  1842,  No.  52. 


l84  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF    BALTIMORE 

cial  conditions,  a  heavy  loss  to  the  city  treasury  and  a  no 
less  serious  blow  to  municipal  credit.  A  conservative  state- 
ment is,  perhaps,  that  by  the  issue  of  stock  orders  the 
finances  of  the  city  escaped  from  greater  loss,  at  the  ex- 
pense of  the  general  economic  interests  of  the  city. 

The  final  installments  of  the  city's  $3,000,000  subscrip- 
tion to  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  Railroad  Company  were 
paid  by  temporary  loans,  by  transfer  of  city  stock  at  par, 
by  the  sale  of  scrip  dividends  of  the  Company,  and  by  out- 
right appropriations  from  out  the  municipal  treasury.  In 
January,  1842,  only  $440,000  remained  yet  undischarged,* 
and  during  1843  the  last  installment  was  paid.^ 

(Baltimore  and  Susquehanna  Railroad.)  Just  as  the  Bal- 
timore and  Ohio  Railroad  was  expected  to  link  Baltimore 
commercially  with  the  undeveloped  country  of  the  interior 
and  the  west,  so  the  Baltimore  and  Susquehanna  Railroad, 
the  nucleus  of  the  present  Northern  Central  Railway,  was 
designed  to  render  the  rich  country  lying  to  the  north  of 
the  city,  tributary  to  local  trade  and  manufacture.  It  was 
projected  with  feverish  enthusiasm  in  1827,  and  an  act  of 
incorporation  was  secured  from  the  General  Assembly  of 
Maryland  in  February,  1828.  The  capital  stock  of  the 
Company  was  fixed  at  $1,000,000,  of  which  the  city  of  Bal- 
timore subscribed  $100,000.  The  railroad,  as  planned,  was 
to  extend  from  Baltimore  to  York  Haven  on  the  Susque- 
hanna River,  where  connection  was  to  be  made  with  the 
Pennsylvania  Canal.  It  was  to  be  constructed  at  moderate 
cost  and  to  be  open  for  traffic  within  a  few  years.' 

The  unexpected  opposition  of  the  Pennsylvania  legisla- 
ture to  granting  the  charter  necessary  for  operation  within 
that  state,  and  the  incorrectness  of  original  estimates  as  to 
the  expense  of  construction,  prevented  the  attainment  of 
either  of  these  results.  In  1837  nearly  one-third  of  the  road 
from    Baltimore    to   York   remained   unfinished,   and   the 

^  Mayor's  Message  of  January  17,  1842. 
'  Mayor's  Message  of  January  15,  1844. 
•  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1827,  ch.  72. 


THE   FINANCES   OF   BALTIMORE  CITY,    1817-1856      185 

financial  resources  of  the  Company  were  completely  ex- 
hausted. At  this  juncture  recourse  was  had  to  the  public 
treiasury.  Local  enthusiasm  for  internal  improvements  was 
still  keen.  The  state  had  passed  the  "  Eight  Million  Loan 
Bill,"  extending  large  aid  to  most  of  the  works  then  under 
construction,  and  the  city  had  made  a  lavish  subscription 
to  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  Railroad.  In  March,  1837,  the 
General  Assembly  authorized  the  municipal  loan  of  a  sum 
not  exceeding  $600,000  for  the  completion  of  the  Baltimore 
and  Susquehanna  Railroad.  The  property  and  income  of 
the  Company  were  pledged  to  the  repayment  of  interest  and 
principal,  subject  to  the  claim  of  the  state  for  prior  repay- 
ment of  its  own  advances.^  The  Commissioners  of  Finance 
were  promptly  authorized  to  issue  certificates  of  stock  to  the 
maximum  amount,  bearing  interest  at  six  per  cent,  and  re- 
deemable after  1870.' 

A  year  later,  with  the  projected  terminus  of  the  railroad 
almost  within  sight,  the  Company  again  found  itself  "  re- 
luctantly compelled  to  apply  to  the  state  and  to  the  city 
for  further  aid  to  enable  them  to  complete  the  enterprise  in 
which  they  are  engaged." '  The  city  responded  in  Febru- 
ary, 1838,  by  authorizing  the  Commissioners  of  Finance  to 
issue  city  stock,  bearing  interest  at  five  per  cent,  and  redeem- 
able in  1870,  to  the  amount  of  $150,000,  with  a  further  sum 
of  $100,000  available  upon  the  completion  of  the  line  to 
York.  These  loans  were  made  subject  to  the  conditions: 
(i)  that  the  Maryland  legislature  should  agree  to  a  similar 
loan,  (2)  that  city  and  state  should  be  vested  with  a  pre- 
ferred lien  upon  the  profits  of  the  road  for  the  prompt  pay- 
ment of  interest  and  principal  upon  the  stock  so  advanced, 
(3)  that  the  Company  should  obtain  a  supplement  to  its 
charter,  reorganizing  the  directorate  and  giving  to  the 
city  of  Baltimore  three  additional  directors  to  represent  the 

^  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1836,  ch.  236. 
'  Ordinance  of  April  10,  1837,  No.  42. 

*  Report  of  the  President  and  Directors  of  the  Baltimore  and 
Susquehanna  Railroad,  December  20,  1837. 


l86  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

new  municipal  subscription.  As  an  inducement  to  grant 
the  loan  of  $250,000  the  city  relinquished  to  the  state  any 
preference  enjoyed  as  to  the  security  of  the  loan  of  $600,000/ 
These  several  conditions  were  satisfied  by  the  General  As- 
sembly in  March,  1838,  and  a  state  loan  of  $500,000  to  the 
Company  was  authorized.^  In  November,  1838,  the  terms 
of  the  loan  of  the  preceding  year  whereby  the  sum  of 
$100,000  became  available  only  upon  the  completion  of  the 
line  to  York,  were  modified  so  as  to  make  the  whole  payable 
in  installments  proceeding  with  the  progress  of  the  work.' 
Finally,  in  1839,  the  city  consented  to  the  postponement  of 
the  liens  and  incumbrances  on  the  property  and  revenues  of 
the  Company  secured  by  the  acts  of  1836  and  1837,*  in  favor 
of  similar  rights  in  favor  of  the  state  to  secure  a  loan  of 
$750,000.  In  addition  to  these  formal  loans,  the  city  upon 
several  occasions  extended  temporary  credit  to  the  Com- 
pany, as  in  1838  in  anticipation  of  a  municipal  loan,  and  in 
1838  as  an  advance  upon  the  state  subscription  made  in 
that  year."" 

(Susquehanna  Canal.)  As  early  as  1783,  the  Maryland 
legislature  had  granted  a  charter  to  a  corporation  organized 
to  construct  a  canal  along  the  Susquehanna  River  from  the 
state  line  to  tide-water.  A  portion  of  the  work  was  actually 
completed,  but  proved  of  little  practical  value.  Repeated 
efforts  to  revive  interest  in  the  project  were  without  suc- 
cess until  June,  1835,  when  the  Susquehanna  Canal  Com- 
pany was  organized  under  a  charter  obtained  from  the  legis- 
lature of  Pennsylvania.     In  the  following  year  the  powers 

^  Ordinance  of  February  24,  1838,  No.  3. 

^  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1837,  ch.  302;  Ordinance  of  April  11,  1838, 
No.  13. 

*  Ordinance  of  November  S,  1838,  No.  i. 

*  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1838,  ch.  395;  Ordinance  of  1839,  No.  40. 
The  ordinance  was  neither  approved  nor  vetoed  by  the  Mayor  and 
consequently  became  valid  five  days  after  its  presentation. 

*  Resolutions  of  February  27  (No.  20)  and  March  10  (No.  26), 
1838;  Ordinances  of  August  28,  1839  (No.  2),  and  April  28,  1840 
(No.  3). 


THE    FINANCES    OF    BALTIMORE   CITY,    1817-1856       187 

of  the  corporation  were  enlarged,  and  in  1837  requisite 
authority  for  operation  in  Maryland  was  obtained  by  the 
incorporation  of  the  Tide  Water  Canal  Company.  Under 
this  legislation  the  property  of  the  old  Maryland  Susque- 
hanna Canal  Company  was  acquired,  and  preparations  were 
made  for  the  construction  of  a  canal  along  the  west  shore  of 
the  river,  from  Columbia  to  tide-water.^ 

The  direct  economic  interest  of  Baltimore  in  the  con- 
struction of  such  a  canal  had  long  been  recognized.  Most 
of  the  capital  expended  in  the  construction  of  the  old  Mary- 
land canal  had  been  contributed  by  its  citizens,  and  a  com- 
mission appointed  by  the  Maryland  legislature  in  1822  to 
lay  out  and  survey  a  route  for  a  canal  from  Conewago  Falls 
to  Baltimore  had  recommended  that  it  be  constructed  by 
the  Mayor  and  City  Council  in  their  corporate  capacity.' 
In  1837,  with  the  successful  revival  of  the  project  and  with 
the  public  mind  then  predisposed  in  favor  of  any  work  of 
internal  improvement,  little  difficulty  was  experienced  in 
obtaining  municipal  aid.  In  April,  1837,  the  Mayor  was 
authorized  to  subscribe  for  7600  shares  of  the  Susquehanna 
Canal  Company  of  a  par  value  of  $50  each,'  and  the  Com- 
missioners of  Finance  were  directed  to  issue  city  stock, 
bearing  interest  at  six  per  cent,  and  redeemable  after  July 
I,  1870,  to  the  amount  of  $380,000,  in  payment  thereof. 
Any  premium  accruing  from  the  sale  of  the  stock  was 
appropriated  to  the  creation  of  a  sinking  fund  for  its  re- 
demption.* In  January,  1838,  the  city  had  paid  upon  its 
subscription  the  sum  of  $228,000,  of  which  $152,000  was 
really  a  temporary  interest-bearing  loan  to  the  Company 
in  advance  of  the  installments  then  actually  called  for.' 

^  Report  of  the  President  and  Directors  of  the  Susquehanna 
Canal  Company,  December  14,  1837.  Scharf,  "  History  of  Balti- 
more City  and  County,"  p.  343. 

'  Ibid.,  p.  343. 

*  Resolution  of  April  10,  1837,  No.  84. 

*  Ordinance  of  April  12,  1837,  No.  39. 
"  Mayor's  Message  of  January  i,  1838. 


l88  THE   FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

(Minor  Issues.)  By  1843  ^^e  local  craze  for  aiding  works 
of  internal  improvement  had  passed  its  most  acute  form. 
Municipal  credit  in  large  amount  was  indeed  extended  to 
such  works  thereafter,  but  it  was  largely  in  consequence 
of  interests  assumed  and  obligations  contracted  during  this 
period.  The  effect  of  the  city's  participation  upon  muni- 
cipal finances  was  marked.  In  1827,  the  funded  debt  of 
Baltimore  was  less  than  $500,000,  with  an  annual  interest 
charge  of  about  $25,000;  in  1844  the  debt  of  the  city  had 
increased  to  $5,493,773.03,  with  an  annual  interest  charge 
of  $313,408.88.^  Of  this  entire  amount,  $4,967,215.30  was 
issued  in  aid  of  works  of  internal  improvement.^  The  re- 
maining $526,557.73  represented  unredeemed  parts  (i)  of 
the  debt  contracted  prior  to  1827,  (2)  of  the  $105,000  Court 
House  Loan  authorized  in  1835  and  1838  (one-half  of  the 
interest  upon  which  was  paid  by  Baltimore  County),'  (3)  of 
stock  issued  in  small  amounts  for  various  municipal  im- 
provements, and  (4)  of  $332,000  authorized  in  1838  and 
1839  ^or  the  redemption  of  municipal  scrip.*  Of  these  sev- 
eral items,  only  the  last  requires  any  additional  comment. 

In  May,  1837,  for  the  purpose  of  meeting  "the  present 
wants  of  the  community  for  sums  of  a  small  amount,"  six 
designated  persons  were  appointed  commissioners  to  pre- 
pare certificates  receivable  in  payment  of  taxes  and  debts 
due  to  the  corporation,  in  denominations  of  five,  ten,  twenty- 
five,  fifty  cents,  one  and  two  dollars  respectively,  to  an  aggre- 

^  Exclusive  of  interest  upon  Court  House  Loan.  Mayor's  Mes- 
sage of  January  15,  1844. 

*The  important  items  were:  Baltimore  and  Ohio  Railroad  Com- 
pany, $3,500,000;  Susquehanna  Railroad  Company,  $950,000;  Sus- 
quehanna and  Tide  Water  Canal  Company,  $380,000. 

*  See  above,  p.  135. 

*  Issues  of  stock  aggregating  $60,000  were  authorized  in  aid  of  the 
Baltimore  and  Chesapeake  Steam  Towing  Company,  as  security  for 
which  a  lien  was  taken  upon  the  property  of  the  Company  (Ordi- 
nance of  April  19,  1839,  No.  yj,  and  April  21,  1843,  No.  35;  Resolu- 
tion of  March  13,  1840,  No.  55).  In  1838  an  issue  of  stock  to  the 
amount  of  $50,000  was  authorized  for  the  improvement  of  Jones' 
Falls  (Ordinance  of  May  28,  1838,  No.  23). 


THE    FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE   CITY,    1817-1856       189 

gate  amount  of  $100,000/  The  certificates  were  to  be  issued 
by  the  Register  and  the  proceeds  appHed  under  the  direction 
of  the  Commissioners  of  Finance  towards  the  redemption 
of  any  of  the  loans  authorized  by  the  city.  Six  weeks  later 
upon  representation  that  "the  wants  of  the  citizens  of  Bal- 
timore require  a  further  issue  of  certificates  for  small  sums 
of  money,"  the  total  amount  authorized  was  increased  to 
$350,000,  of  which  the  Commissioners  of  Finance  were 
empowered  to  loan  to  the  Mayor  and  City  Council  of 
Baltimore  a  sum  not  exceeding  $100,000,  "  to  pay  all  ex- 
penses accruing  from  the  consequences  of  the  late  freshet,"  ' 
With  the  recovery  of  economic  interests  from  the  panic  of 
1837,  the  scrip  flowed  back  into  the  municipal  treasury. 
In  1838  the  issue  of  city  stock  to  an  amount  not  exceeding 
$309,000,  bearing  interest  at  6  per  cent,  and  redeemable  at 
will — increased  in  the  following  year  by  $23,000  redeemable 
in  i860' — ^was  authorized  for  the  redemption  of  the  muni- 
cipal currency  as  it  accumulated  in  the  hands  of  the  Regis- 
ter. The  further  increase  or  reissue  of  the  scrip  in  any 
denomination  less  than  one  dollar  was  prohibited.  Pro- 
vision was  also  made  that  within  twenty  days  after  the  re- 
sumption of  specie  payments  by  the  banks  of  the  city,  the 
Commissioners  of  Finance  should  issue  $100,000  of  city 
stock,  the  proceeds  to  be  applied  by  the  Register  to  the 
general  redemption  of  the  scrip.^  Finally,  in  June,  1839, 
the  Commissioners  of  Finance  were  authorized  to  substitute 
for  the  stock  issued  in  the  preceding  year,  sterling  bonds 
to  the  same  amount,  payable  in  London  and  bearing  interest 
not  exceeding  six  per  cent. 

Guaranteed   Debt.    The    funded   debt    of    Baltimore    re- 

*  Ordinances  of  May  16  and  20,  1837.  The  prescribed  form  of 
the  certificate  was  as  follows :  "  This  certificate  will  be  received  by 
the  Mayor  and  City  Council  of  Baltimore,  in  payment  of  taxes  or 

debts  due  to  the  corporation,  for  the  sum  of  ,  pursuant 

to  the  ordinance  in  such  case  made  and  provided." 

^  Ordinance  of  June  30,  1837. 

*  Ordinance  of  March  22,  1839,  No.  18. 

*  Ordinance  of  May  28,  1838,  No.  23. 


190  THE    FINANCIAL    HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE      • 

mained  practically  stationary  from  1844  to  1850.  What- 
ever slight  issues  may  have  been  made  for  miscellaneous 
purposes  were  counterbalanced  by  cancellations  from  out 
the  sinking  fund.  A  detailed  statement  of  the  City  Register 
in  February,  1850,  showed  the  aggregate  existent  funded 
debt  to  be  $5,454,389.17. 

Between  1850  and  1856  occurred  a  second  increase  of 
municipal  indebtedness  absolutely,  although  not  relatively, 
greater  than  that  occurring  between  1828  and  1844.  By 
January  30,  1857,  the  funded  debt  of  the  city  had  increased 
to  $11,996,675  and  a  "  guaranteed  debt "  of  $2,000,000  had 
been  contracted.  This  marked  expansion  resulted  from 
two  causes:  (i)  further  extension  of  municipal  credit  in  aid 
of  works  of  internal  improvement,  (2)  municipal  purchase 
and  improvement  of  water  works. 

Three  railroads  were  projected  in  1851-53,  in  the  con- 
struction of  each  of  which  Baltimore  was  supposed  to  pos- 
sess a  direct  economic  interest:  The  Northwestern  Railroad 
Company,  incorporated  by  the  Virginia  legislature  in  1851, 
proposed  to  construct  a  tributary  to  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio 
Railroad,  extending  from  Three  Forks  on  the  main  line  of 
that  road,  to  Parkersburg;  the  Susquehanna  Railroad  Com- 
pany, incorporated  by  the  Pennsylvania  legislature  in  1851, 
undertook  to  connect  the  terminus  of  the  York  and  Cumber- 
land Railroad  at  Bridgeport  with  Williamsport ;  the  Pitts- 
burg and  Connellsville  Railroad  Company,  incorporated 
by  the  Pennsylvania  legislature,  offered  a  direct  connection 
between  Pittsburg  and  Cumberland,  or  some  adjacent 
point  on  the  line  of  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  Railroad.^ 

Each  of  these  projects  was  launched  with  a  capitalization 
inadequate  for  the  construction  of  the  work,  probably  with 
the  intention  of  securing  additional  funds  by  the  issue  of 
mortgage  bonds.  The  credit  of  all  railroad  securities  con- 
tinued at  low  ebb,  however,  and  such  a  method  of  finan- 

'  For  details  of  Baltimore's  interest  in  the  construction  of  these 
roads,  see  Mayor's  Message  of  January  19,  1852. 


THE   FINANCES   OF   BALTIMORE  CITY,    1817-1856'     I9I 

ciering  became  impossible.  Recourse  was  accordingly  had 
to  Baltimore  City  for  municipal  aid,  as  the  only  means  of 
preventing  abandonment  of  the  proposed  works.  Despite 
general  recognition  of  the  public  utility  of  the  railroads, 
the  experience  of  Baltimore  with  works  of  internal  im- 
provement had  proven  so  unsatisfactory,  and  the  immediate 
result,  in  the  form  of  an  augmented  tax  levy  to  provide 
interest  upon  the  city  stock  issued  in  aid  thereof,  had 
proven  so  disastrous,  that  no  serious  attempt  was  made  to 
secure  direct  municipal  grants  or  subscriptions.  Instead, 
a  method  of  municipal  endorsement  of  corporate  securities 
was  proposed,  whereby  the  city  guaranteed  the  payment  of 
interest  and  principal  of  definite  issues  of  railroad  securities 
and  was  secured  by  liens  upon  the  property  and  revenue 
of  the  respective  corporations.  This  plan  of  extending 
municipal  credit  without  assuming  any  direct  municipal 
burden  was  recommended  by  Mayor  J.  H.  T.  Jerome  in 
1852,  and  the  necessary  enabling  legislation  having  been 
obtained  from  the  General  Assembly  of  Maryland,^  the 
municipality  undertook  the  guarantee  of  the  bonds  of  the 
Northwestern  Railroad  Company,  of  the  York  and  Cumber- 
land Railroad  Company  (controlling  the  Susquehanna  Rail- 
road Company),  and  the  Pittsburg  and  Connellsville  Rail- 
road Company,  to  the  maximum  amounts  of  $1,500,000, 
$500,000  and  $1,000,000,  respectively.  The  city  reserved 
the  right  to  take  capital  stock  to  the  amount  of  bonds  guar- 
anteed, and  was  protected  in  the  interval  by  the  conveyance 
of  a  deed  from  each  corporation,  pledging  its  property  for 
the  payment  of  interest  and  principal  of  the  bonds  guar- 
anteed.' 

Practically  the  same  period  witnessed  a  critical  turn  in 
the  affairs  of  the  public  work  to  which  Baltimore  had  given 
largest  aid  and  in  the  success  of  which  she  conceived  her 
largest  interest — the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  Railroad.     Com- 

* "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1851,  chs.  141,  146;  1852,  ch,  269. 
*  Ordinances  of  June  14  (No.  40),  June  17  (No.  44),  July  22  (No. 
76),  1852;  June  24,  1853,  No.  74;  June  10,  1856,  No.  29. 


192  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

pleted  to  Wheeling  on  January  i,  1853,  the  railroad  was 
now  open  for  traffic  over  its  full  line  from  the  Chesapeake  to 
the  Ohio.  But  this  result  had  been  attained  only  by  strain- 
ing every  resource  and  the  Company  was  now  confronted 
by  a  financial  impasse.  A  large  amount  of  floating  indebt- 
edness had  been  incurred  which  required  early  discharge  or 
funding;  much  remained  to  be  done  to  complete  perma- 
nently the  road  to  Wheeling,  and  there  was  great  need  of  a 
second  track  to  accommodate  the  growing  traffic  of  the 
road.  In  the  face  of  urgent  pressure  from  these  several 
directions  for  large  and  immediately  available  funds,  the 
Company  found  itself  practically  unable,  with  prevailing 
financial  conditions,  to  negotiate  its  own  securities. 

On  December  14,  1853,  the  municipality  agreed  to  guar- 
antee the  payment  of  interest  and  principal  of  an  issue  of 
Baltimore  and  Ohio  six  per  cent,  bonds  to  the  maximum 
amount  of  $5,000,000,  in  manner  and  subject  to  conditions 
closely  resembling  the  guaranteed  issues  already  described/ 
At  the  last  moment,  doubt  seems  to  have  been  experienced 
as  to  the  ability  of  the  Company  to  realize  upon  such  securi- 
ties, for  a  fortnight  later  the  ordinance  authorizing  the 
municipal  guarantee  was  repealed  and  a  direct  loan  of  $5,- 
000,000  to  the  Company  was  substituted  therefor.  The 
Commissioners  of  Finance  were  therein  instructed  to  issue 
and  sell  municipal  stock — in  5  per  cent,  sterling  securities 
payable  in  London  or  6  per  cent,  currency  securities  in  their 
discretion — to  the  amount  of  $5,000,000,  redeemable  on  Jan- 
uary I,  1890.  The  proceeds  as  received  were  to  be  paid  to  the 
Company,  less  a  reservation  of  10  per  cent,  which  with  its  ac- 
cumulations was  to  be  invested  by  the  Commissioners  of  Fi- 
nance as  a  sinking  fund  and  to  be  ultimately  credited  to  the 
Company  in  aid  of  the  redemption  of  the  debt  The  Com- 
pany executed  a  full  mortgage  to  the  city  of  all  property  and 
revenues  for  the  discharge  of  interest  and  principal.  In 
order  to  meet  the  immediate  exigencies  of  the  railroad,  an 
issue  of  city  scrip  to  the  amount  of  $1,000,000  was  author- 

^  Ordinance  of  December  14,  1853,  No.  2. 


THE    FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE   CITY,    1817-1856       I93 

ized,  fundable  in  the  later  bond  issue.  The  entire  ordi- 
nance was  made  conditional  upon  the  assent  of  the  suc- 
ceeding General  Assembly  of  Maryland.'  This  confirma- 
tion was  not  secured  until  March,  1854,  and  then  only  sub- 
ject to  the  provision  that  no  mortgage  conveyed  to  the  city 
should  lessen  or  impair  any  of  the  liens  or  securities  held 
by  the  state  for  loans  theretofore  made  or  for  interest  then 
due." 

The  difficulty  of  negotiating  any  large  amount  of  muni- 
cipal securities,  even  though  strengthened  by  municipal 
guarantee,  which  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  Railroad  had  an- 
ticipated, was  actually  experienced  by  the  Pittsburg  and 
Connellsville  Railroad.  In  June,  1856,  the  guaranteed 
bonds,  before  authorized,  were  replaced  by  a  direct  muni- 
cipal loan  of  the  same  amount  and  secured  as  before.^ 

Purchase  of  Water  Plant.  The  General  Assembly  of 
Maryland  in  1853  authorized  the  municipality  to  issue  stock 
to  the  maximum  amount  of  $2,000,000  for  the  purchase  of 
the  plant  of  the  Baltimore  Water  Company.*  The  transac- 
tion was  completed  in  the  summer  of  1854,  and  $1,350,000 
in  six  per  cent,  stock,  redeemable  in  January,  1875,  was 
given  to  the  Baltimore  Water  Company  in  return  for  an 
absolute  conveyance  of  property  and  rights.'  During  1855 
and  1856  specific  ordinances  authorized  the  issue  of  the  re- 
maining $650,000  for  the  extension  and  improvement  of 
the  plant.'  By  January  30,  1857,  of  the  total  amount  au- 
thorized, $1,540,786.73  had  been  issued.^ 

The  stock  issued  for  the  purchase  and  improvement  of 
the  water  works  stood  on  a  diflferent  basis  from  ordinary 

'  Ordinance  of  December  27,  1853,  No.  s;  cf.  Resolution  of  Janu- 
ary 19,  1854,  No.  I. 

*  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1853,  ch.  34. 

*  Ordinance  of  June  10,  1856,  No.  29. 

*  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1853,  ch.  376. 

'  Ordinances  of  July  29,  1854,  No.  80. 

'  Ordinances  of  October  19,  1855,  No.  68;  May  13  (No.  20),  June 
25  (No.  32)  and  July  17  (No.  40),  1856. 

^  Register's  Report  of  January  30,  1857,  p.  83. 


194  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

municipal  stock,  being  practically  independent  and  self- 
sustaining.  In  the  enabling  ordinance  of  1854  specific  pro- 
vision was  made  that  the  annual  interest  of  the  stock  so 
issued  should  be  defrayed  from  out  "  the  net  annual  rents 
and  revenues  of  the  property."  In  1856  the  clause  was 
added  that  all  the  surplus  from  water  rentals  in  excess  of  the 
interest  upon  water  stock  and  of  the  expenses  of  operation 
should  be  paid  over  to  the  Commissioners  of  Finance,  who 
were  directed  to  invest  the  proceeds  as  a  separate  fund  in 
trust  for  the  Water  Department.  The  city  pledged  its  faith 
to  preserve  this  fund  inviolate  as  a  sinking  fund  for  the 
redemption  of  water  stock,  and  authorized  a  special  annual 
levy  of  one-half  per  cent.,  for  twenty  years  or  less  if  neces- 
sary, in  aid  of  the  sinking  fund  so  provided.^ 

Administration  and  Limitation. 

The  negotiation  of  loans,  the  issue  of  stock  and  the  cus- 
tody of  the  sinking  funds  was  originally  vested  in  the 
Mayor  and  the  presidents  of  the  two  Branches  of  the  City 
Council.''  In  June,  1818,  a  board  of  Commissioners  of 
Finance,  composed  of  two  members  of  the  First  Branch  and 
one  member  of  the  Second  Branch  of  the  City  Council, 
designated  by  the  Mayor,  was  constituted  and  charged  in 
conjunction  with  the  Mayor  with  the  negotiation  of  certain 
loans.*  A  month  later  this  board  was  substituted  for  the 
Mayor  and  the  Council  presidents  in  one  of  the  earlier 
ordinances/  In  1833  the  Board  of  Commissioners  of  Fi- 
nance was  definitely  reorganized  by  substituting  for  the 
Council  presidents,  two  persons  annually  elected  by  a  joint 
convention  of  the  City  Council.  The  Mayor  continued  to 
form  a  third  member  of  the  board  and  was  authorized  to  fill 
all  temporary  vacancies." 

The  original  statute  authorizing  the  creation  of  a  funded 

^  Ordinance  of  May  13,  1856,  No.  20. 

*  Ordinances  of  August  15  and  October  5,  1817;  March  28,  1818. 

*  Ordinance  of  June  11,  1818. 

*  Ordinance  of  July  22,  1818. 

'  Ordinance  of  March  13,  1883,  No.  16. 


THE    FINANCES    OF    BALTIMORE   CITY,    1817-1856       I95 

debt  "  for  the  purpose  of  promoting  or  effecting  any  great 
or  permanent  improvements  "  limited  the  maximum  issue 
of  corporate  stock  to  one  million  dollars/  This  power  was 
further  reduced  in  1830  by  the  enactment  of  the  provision 
that  "  the  debts  which  the  mayor  and  city  council  of  Balti- 
more may  contract  on  behalf  of  said  city,  shall  not,  in  the 
aggregate,  at  any  time,  exceed  the  sum  of  one  million  of 
dollars,  including  as  a  part  of  said  sum  whatsoever  amount 
the  city  may  now  owe."  ^  Two  years  later  this  limitation 
was  repealed  and  a  somewhat  vaguer  provision  adopted, 
whereby  the  corporation  was  authorized  to  borrow  "  such 
sum  or  sums  of  money,  and  to  such  amounts,  not  exceeding 
one  million  of  dollars,  for  the  use  and  improvement  of  the 
city  of  Baltimore,  and  of  the  property  of  the  corporation, 
and  to  aid  in  the  construction  of  any  useful  public  work, 
authorized  by  any  law  of  the  state,  or  ordinance  of  the  said 
mayor  and  city  council,  and  on  such  terms  as  they,  from 
time  to  time,  shall  deem  proper  and  necessary." "  This  lim- 
itation remained  in  force,  practically  without  change,  until 
1861.* 

The  statutory  limitation  upon  the  corporate  borrowing 
power  was  greatly  reduced  by  the  facility  with  which  the 
General  Assembly  authorized,  by  the  passage  of  special 
acts,  municipal  loans  or  the  use  of  municipal  credit  for  spe- 
cific purposes.  The  statutory  limitations  doubtless  served 
to  prevent  an  even  more  reckless  issue  of  funded  securities 
and  in  so  far  performed  an  important  negative  service.  In 
practice,  however,  almost  every  important  issue  of  city 
stock  was  based  upon  special  legislative  authority,  and  the 
actual  eflfect  of  the  one  million  authorized  for  general  pur- 
poses was  to  restrict  minor  uses  of  municipal  credit,  as  the 
issue  of  the  "  water  stock  "  °  and  the  negotiation  of  tempo- 
rary loans. 

*  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1817,  ch.  148,  sect.  7. 

'  Ihid.,  1830,  ch.  139.  *  Ibid.,  1831,  ch.  214. 

*Ibid.,  1861,  ch.  75.  »  See  below,  p.  306. 


196  the  financial  history  of  baltimore 

Sinking  Fund. 

No  provision  for  the  amortization  of  funded  indebtedness 
was  contained  either  in  the  loan  ordinances  of  181 7  or  in 
the  statute  of  181 8,  formally  authorizing  the  issue  of  city 
stock.  In  April,  1818,  a  sinking  fund  "  for  the  reimburse- 
ment and  redemption  of  the  debts  of  the  city  of  Baltimore  " 
was  created  by  the  annual  appropriation  of  $6,000  to  be 
paid  in  quarterly  installment  from  out  the  city  treasury. 
The  fund  was  vested  in  the  care  of  three  unsalaried  "  Com- 
missioners of  the  Sinking  Fund  of  the  City  of  Baltimore," 
consisting,  respectively,  of  the  cashiers  of  the  Bank  of 
Baltimore,  of  the  Union  Bank  of  Maryland  and  of  the 
Franklin  Bank  of  Baltimore.  Investments  were  Hmited  to 
Baltimore  City  stock,  United  States  six  per  cent,  stock,  and 
stock  of  the  Bank  of  the  United  States  and  of  any  of  the 
city  banks.  Preference  in  purchase  was  to  be  given  to 
city  stock  when  obtainable  at  or  below  par,  but  at  no  time 
could  such  stock  be  purchased  above  par.  Purchases  were 
to  be  made  and  transferred  to  the  Commissioners  of  the 
Sinking  Fund  in  trust  for  the  corporation,  and  annual  report 
as  to  the  condition  and  progress  of  the  fund  was  required.' 

In  practice  the  investments  of  the  sinking  fund  appear  to 
have  been  confined  from  the  first  to  city  stock.  It  became 
increasingly  difficult,  with  the  improvement  of  municipal 
credit  and  in  consequence  of  the  limitation  to  purchase  at 
par  or  less,  thus  to  invest  increments  of  the  funds  and  the 
proceeds  of  the  annual  appropriation.  In  January,  182 1,  the 
discontinuance  of  the  appropriation  and  application  of  the 
fund,  then  containing  city  stock  to  the  amount  of  $32,- 
487.17,  to  the  direct  cancellation  of  city  indebtedness  were 
recommended.  In  lieu  of  a  sinking  fund,  it  was  suggested 
that  unexpended  annual  balances  should  be  devoted  to  the 
extinguishment  of  the  debt.  This  recommendation  was  re- 
newed from  year  to  year,  but  was  never  actually  adopted. 
The  annual  appropriation  of  $6000  continued  to  be  made, 

^  Ordinance  of  April  i,  1818,  No.  23. 


THE    FINANCES    OF    BALTIMORE   CITY,    1817-1856       I97 

but  with  irregularity  both  in  payment  and  in  investment/ 
As  a  result  of  this  experience  and  influenced  to  a  consid- 
erable degree  by  the  amortization  policy  of  the  federal  gov- 
ernment, an  important  change  in  the  maintenance  of  the 
sinking  fund  was  made  in  1826.  The  Commissioners  of  the 
Sinking  Fund  were  discharged  and  the  custody  of  the  fund 
was  transferred  to  the  Commissioners  of  Finance.  An  an- 
nual appropriation  of  $27,000,  together  with  the  rents  and 
proceeds  of  the  sales  of  property  belonging  to  the  corpo- 
ration, was  made  to  the  fund.  The  annual  interest  charge 
upon  the  total  funded  debt  and  the  principal  of  maturing 
loans  was  paid  from  out  this  fund,  and  any  resulting  sur- 
plus was  employed  in  the  purchase  of  city  stock.  Such 
purchases  were  not,  however,  permitted  to  accumulate  as  a 
redemption  fund  but  were  promptly  cancelled  by  an  auditing 
committee  of  the  City  Council."  This  was  manifestly  a  sink- 
ing fund  only  in  name.  Certain  funds  were  annually  appro- 
priated to  the  Commissioners  of  Finance  for  the  payment  of 
the  annual  interest  charge  upon  the  funded  debt  of  the  city, 
and  any  resulting  surplus  was  devoted  to  the  reduction  of 
the  principal  of  that  debt. 

The  history  of  the  sinking  fund  for  the  next  twenty-five 
years  is  neither  interesting  nor  instructive.  The  fund  con- 
tinued to  receive  the  net  income  from  municipal  property; 
but  as  a  result  of  the  accepted  policy  of  disposing  of  real 
estate  as  soon  as  an  opportunity  presented,  the  annual 
revenue  from  this  source  rarely  exceeded  four  or  five  thous- 
and dollars.  With  the  issue  of  the  large  internal  improve- 
ment loans,  the  practice  of  direct  appropriations  to  the 
sinking  fund  was  omitted.     In  1850  the  provision  "  that  the 

^  Mayor's  Message  of  January  i,  1821.  On  January  2,  1826, 
Mayor  John  Montgomery  complained:  "Up  to  November,  1825, 
that  is,  during  a  period  of  seven  years,  only  the  sum  of  $42,132.79 
was  paid  over  in  cash  to  this  fund,  being  the  mere  amount  of  the 
annual  appropriation  of  $6,000,  and  that,  too,  without  even  simple 
interest,  when  the  active  principal  of  the  Ordinance  was  founded 
upon  compound  interest." 

^  Ordinance  of  April  3,  1826,  No.  3. 


198  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

sum  of  six  thousand  dollars  be  annually  appropriated  in  aid 
of  the  sinking  fund  "  was  specifically  renewed,  but  not  until 
the  eve  of  the  succeeding  period  of  municipal  history  was 
it  practically  enforced.  Despite  the  provisions  of  the  ordi- 
nance of  1826  the  revenues  of  the  sinking  fund  were  at  first 
permitted  to  accumulate  by  re-investment  Somewhat  later 
the  policy  of  purchase  and  immediate  cancellation  of  mu- 
nicipal securities  was  again  adopted.  After  1845,  the  an- 
nual revenues  of  the  sinking  fund  were  carried  forward  from 
year  to  year  as  an  uninvested  balance.  Finally  in  1855  the 
Commissioners  of  Finance  were  directed  to  invest  in  city 
stock  all  funds  in  their  possession  or  to  their  credit,  and 
the  nucleus  of  the  modem  sinking  fund  was  formed  by 
the  purchase  of  municipal  securities  to  the  amount  of 
$143,279.11.' 

The  only  special  sinking  fund  created  in  Baltimore  be- 
fore 1857  was  that  for  the  amortization  of  the  Five  Million 
Baltimore  and  Ohio  Loan  of  1853-54.  The  ordinance  au- 
thorizing the  loan  required  a  reservation  of  ten  per  cent,  of 
the  proceeds,  to  be  invested  by  the  Commissioners  of  Fi- 
nance as  a  sinking  fund  and  to  be  ultimately  credited  to  the 
railroad  in  the  repayment  of  the  loan.  Faithful  compliance 
was  had  with  this  provision,  and  on  January  i,  1857,  the 
"  Five  Million  Sinking  Fund  "  aggregated  $456,845.54. 

Some  explanation  of  the  inadequate  provision  made  by 
the  city  for  the  amortization  of  municipal  indebtedness  with- 
in the  period  here  examined  is  to  be  found  in  the  roseate 
view  taken  of  the  objects  for  which  that  indebtedness  was 
in  great  part  incurred.  The  various  subscriptions,  loans 
and  guarantees  made  by  the  city  in  aid  of  works  of  internal 
improvement,  were  at  first  regarded  as  highly  profitable  in- 
vestments, which  instead  of  entailing  any  burden  upon  the 
municipality  would  at  no  distant  date  permit  a  reduction  of 
those  already  borne.  The  early  failure  of  the  enterprises 
to  realize  the  profits  anticipated  was  ordinarily  explained  as 

^  Mayor's  Message  of  January,  1856. 


THE    FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE   CITY,    1817-1856       I99 

due  to  unexpected  difficulties  of  construction,  and  the  mu- 
nicipality delayed  to  provide  for  the  amortization  of  the 
indebtedness  incurred.  When  the  final  awakening  came, 
bringing  with  it  the  certainty  that  the  indebtedness  con- 
tracted in  aid  of  works  of  internal  improvement  would  re- 
main for  many  years  an  annual  charge  upon  the  tax-payer, 
public  sentiment  was  in  no  mood  to  add  to  the  burden  of 
interest  payment  by  making  adequate  provision  for  sinking 
funds. 

Municipal  Credit. 

A  characteristic  feature  of  the  deficit  financiering  of  Bal- 
timore has  always  been  the  use  of  par  rather  than  discount 
bonds.  This  practice  was  fully  established  in  the  period 
from  18 1 7  to  1856.  In  every  loan  ordinance  provision  was 
made  that  the  stock  therein  authorized  should  be  negotiated 
at  a  designated  rate  of  interest  and  at  not  less  than  par.  A 
considerable  part  of  the  funded  indebtedness,  contracted 
prior  to  1857,  however  involved  the  direct  issue  of  municipal 
securities  to  the  ultimate  beneficiary  at  par  valuation  and 
without  public  negotiation  and  sale.  This  was  true  of  the 
more  important  municipal  subscriptions  to  internal  im- 
provement projects  and  of  the  stock  issued  for  the  purchase 
of  the  water  plant.  The  condition  of  municipal  credit  was 
thus  represented  with  more  or  less  exactness  by  the  interest 
rate  of  the  successive  loans  issued-  In  some  cases  diffi- 
culty was  experienced  in  negotiating  municipal  securities 
at  the  designated  rate  of  interest  and  limited  to  sale  at  par; 
in  other  instances  a  slight  premium  was  realized  and  appro- 
priated to  the  sinking. fund.  Similarly  municipal  securities 
were  bought  and  sold  by  investors  in  the  open  market  at 
terms  varying  widely  from  par  valuation;  but  such  fluctua- 
tions ordinarily  corresponded  to  movements  in  general 
financial  and  industrial  conditions  rather  than  to  changes 
in  municipal  credit,  and  exerted  no  considerable  influence 
upon  municipal  finances. 

The  earliest  issues  of  corporate  stock  in   181 7-19  bore 


200  THE    FINANCIAL    HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

interest  at  six  per  cent.  These  seem  to  have  been  taken 
easily  at  par,  and  in  1821  a  refunding  ordinance  at  five  per 
cent,  was  passed.  In  1827  more  than  three-fourths  of  the 
funded  indebtedness,  then  aggregating  about  $500,000,  was 
in  the  form  of  five  per  cent,  stock.  The  original  subscrip- 
tions to  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  and  the  Baltimore  and 
Susquehanna  Railroads  were  met  by  the  issue  of  five  per 
cent,  stock,  and  no  difficulty  appears  to  have  been  experi- 
enced in  gradually  negotiating  these  at  par.  In  1831  five 
per  cent,  refunding  stock,  redeemable  in  1845,  was  nego- 
tiated at  an  appreciable  premium.^ 

The  second  important  issue  of  municipal  securities  in 
aid  of  internal  improvement  projects  occurred  immediately 
before  and  during  the  crisis  of  1837.  It  was  found  imprac- 
ticable, in  the  complete  prostration  of  financial  interests,  to 
negotiate  at  par  a  six  per  cent.  bond.  Rather  than  suffer 
the  risk  of  amendatory  legislation  or  the  loss  of  delayed 
sale,  the  beneficiaries  accepted  the  city  stock  in  payment  of 
subscriptions  and  loans,  and  then  proceeded  to  realize  there- 
upon by  direct  sale  at  discount  or  by  indirect  devices  such 
as  the  issue  of  "  stock  orders."  The  effect  upon  municipal 
finances  was  as  of  the  direct  issue  at  par  of  a  corresponding 
amount  of  six  per  cent,  stock.  In  1850  the  total  funded 
debt  of  the  city  was  $5,454,389.17,  of  which  $4,456,713.12 
bore  interest  at  six  per  cent  From  1850  to  1856  municipal 
credit  was  expressed  in  ability  to  borrow  large  funds  at  a 
rate  slightly  better  than  six  per  cent.  The  $5,000,000  loan 
to  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  Railroad  was  successfully  nego- 
tiated, in  so  far  as  issued,  in  the  form  of  six  per  cent,  cur- 
rency bonds,  and  the  bonds  accepted  at  par  valuation  by 
the  Baltimore  Water  Company  in  payment  of  the  water 
works  were  of  the  same  character.' 

^  The  price  realized  seems  to  have  been  104;  of.  Register's  State- 
ment of  December  31,  1832. 

^  Municipal  bonds  were  exempt  from  local  taxation,  and  the 
state  tax  imposed  thereon  was  paid  by  the  city. 


PART  IV 

THE  FINANCES  OF  BALTIMORE  CITY 
FROM  1857  TO  1897 

INTRODUCTION 

The  modern  era  of  the  municipal  history  of  Baltimore, 
regarded  both  in  its  financial  and  in  its  administrative  as- 
pects, is  represented  by  the  period  from  1857  to  1897.  Lo- 
cal trade  and  commerce  suffered  keenly  from  the  events  of 
the  Civil  War.  Communication  with  the  South  was  com- 
pletely cut  off,  and  western  trade  diverted  to  other  channels. 
But  the  causes  of  prosperity  were  suspended,  not  destroyed, 
and  as  the  prostrate  industrial  life  of  the  territory  naturally 
tributary  to  Baltimore  revived,  the  city  emerged  into  new 
importance  as  an  industrial  centre.  Thenceforth  economic 
development  proceeded  uninterruptedly.  Population  in- 
creased from  212,418  in  i860,  to  267,354  in  1870,  to  332,313 
in  1880,  to  434,439  in  1890.  The  residential  section  of  the 
city  expanded  and  in  1888  a  large  area  or  "  belt "  of  su- 
burban territory  was  annexed  to  the  corporate  limits.  The 
diversification  of  manufactures,  the  growth  of  commerce, 
the  extension  of  trade,  the  increase  of  population,  the  influx 
of  foreign  elements,  the  rise  of  economic  standards,  the 
development  of  social  consciousness  were  the  essential  ele- 
ments in  the  later  economic  history  of  Baltimore. 

The  year  1856  marked  the  complete  ascendency  of  the 
Know-Nothing  party  in  local  politics.  This  domination 
was  retained  until  the  passage  of  the  "  Reform  Bills  "  in 

(201) 


202  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

i860  and  the  correction  of  grave  abuses  in  police  adminis- 
tration and  in  election  methods.  It  is  an  extraordinary  cir- 
cumstance that  these  years,  although  characterized  by  the 
use  of  fraud  and  intimidation  in  municipal  elections  to  a  de- 
gree almost  unique  in  American  political  history,  were, 
upon  the  whole,  progressive  in  municipal  policy.  War  and 
Reconstruction  brought  looseness  and  irregularity  into  mu- 
nicipal affairs,.  There  was  perhaps  no  actual  misappropria- 
tion of  corporate  funds,  but  waste  and  laxity  were  the  domi- 
nant notes.  The  modern  phase  of  the  political  history  of 
the  city  began  with  the  success  of  the  democratic  party  at 
the  municipal  election  of  1867.  The  political  complexion 
of  the  city  remained  unchanged  from  that  time  until  1895, 
when  a  wave  of  municipal  reform  swept  the  full  republican 
ticket  into  office. 

The  administrative  history  of  Baltimore  since  the  Civil 
War  confirms  the  experience  of  the  ordinary  American  city. 
The  affairs  of  the  municipality  were  conducted  as  no  man  of 
ordinary  sagacity  would  manage  his  own  private  business. 
There  was  no  great  municipal  scandal  nor  palpable  malad- 
ministration in  detail;  but  the  actual  results  attained — the 
burdens  imposed,  the  benefits  conferred,  the  obligations 
accumulated — were  very  different  from  those  which  an  en- 
lightened municipal  policy  would  have  secured.  In  reach- 
ing this  end,  political  creed  played  no  part  whatever.  It  so 
happened  that  one  party  was  in  office  during  practically  the 
entire  period  considered;  but  it  may  safely  be  asserted  that 
no  more  favorable  results  would  have  followed  had  the  op- 
posing party  been  in  continuous  power.  Neither  corrup- 
tion of  parties  nor  incompetency  of  individual  officials,  but 
the  mischief  of  prevailing  methods  and  the  indifference  of 
popular  sentiment  were  responsible  for  the  feebleness  and 
inefficiency  of  municipal  government  during  the  period 
considered. 


CHAPTER  I 

MTJNICIPAX  ADMINISTRATION. 

Corporate  Powers. 

The  original  charter  of  1796,  as  modified  by  the  mass  of 
amendatory  legislation  enacted  at  successive  sessions  of  the 
General  Assembly,  remained  the  basis  of  the  municipal  gov- 
ernment of  Baltimore  in  the  period  from  1857  to  1897.  Cer- 
tain important  features  of  the  existing  administrative  frame- 
work were  incorporated  in  the  Maryland  Constitution  of 
1867,  but  the  right  of  subsequent  legislative  control  was 
expressly  reserved  to  the  General  Assembly.  From  time  to 
time,  the  accumulation  of  supplementary  laws  became  in- 
tolerable and  relief  was  afforded  by  the  codification  and  in- 
corporation into  the  statute  law  of  Maryland  of  all  legisla- 
tion relating  to  Baltimore.  The  latest  of  such  codifications 
(Article  4,  "  City  of  Baltimore,"  of  the  Public  Local  Laws 
of  Maryland,  1888)  together  with  a  very  considerable  num- 
ber of  supplementary  statutes  thereafter  enacted  constituted 
the  actual  "  charter  "  of  Baltimore  at  the  close  of  the  period 
under  consideration.  It  was  described  by  a  distinguished 
jurist  of  the  city  as  "  an  incongruous  medley  of  constitu- 
tional provisions  and  statutes  enacted  at  various  times  and 
often  for  merely  temporary  purposes."  To  this  might 
have  been  added  the  equally  conservative  statement  that  no 
city  in  the  United  .States  labored  for  so  long  a  period  under 
a  more  antiquated,  cumbrous,  and  inadequate  instrument 
of  government. 

Administrative  Organization. 

The  actual  form  of  the  city  administration  underwent  par- 
tial and  spasmodic  change  by  special  acts  of  the  legislature, 

(203) 


204  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

and,  within  authorized  Hmits,  by  ordinances  of  the  City 
Council.  Few,  if  any,  of  these  modifications  touched  the 
essential  features  of  the  municipal  government.  Under  the 
vigorous  administration  of  Mayor  Thomas  Swann,  the 
Board  of  Fire  Commissioners  was  organized  in  1858,  and 
the  Park  Board  in  i860.  The  political  excesses  of  the 
Know-Nothing  rule  in  Baltimore  resulted  in  the  transfer  of 
control  of  the  local  police  force  from  the  city  to  a  state 
Board  of  Police  Commissioners  in  i860.  The  Harbor 
Board  was  established  in  1876,  and  the  Mayor  was  made  a 
member,  ex-ofUcio,  of  all  important  municipal  boards  in  1888. 
Other  administrative  charges  are  noted  in  succeeding  pages 
in  connection  with  the  fiscal  activity  of  the  particular  branch 
of  municipal  service  affected. 

Financial  Machinery. 

In  1857  the  office  of  Comptroller  was  established  for  the 
examination,  audit  and  settlement  of  all  accounts  in  which 
the  corporation  was  concerned  either  as  debtor  or  creditor, 
a  duty  before  performed  by  the  Register.  The  new  official 
was  appointed  biennially  by  the  Mayor,  subject  to  the  con- 
firmation of  the  City  Council.  In  1877  vouchers  for  all  de- 
partmental expenditures  were  audited,  adjusted  and  filed  in 
the  Comptroller's  department,  and  paid  by  the  City  Register 
upon  the  order  of  the  Comptroller.  The  money  received  by 
each  department  was  not,  as  theretofore,  retained  and  dis- 
bursed in  the  payment  of  bills  incurred,  but  was  regularly 
reported  in  amount,  as  required,  to  the  Comptroller,  who 
issued  his  warrant  to  the  City  Register  to  receive  the  spe- 
cific sums.^ 

By  the  terms  of  the  ordinance  of  1857  creating  the  office 
of  Comptroller,  the  office  of  Auditor  was  abolished  and  the 
actual  incumbent  retained  only  until   March   i,   1858,  for 

^  Resolution  of  February  14,  1877,  No.  32;  Report  of  City  Comp- 
troller of  January  i,  1878. 


THE    FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    1857-I897       205 

completing  the  collection  of  tax  arrears/  The  office  how- 
ever continued  in  formal  existence  for  several  years  longer, 
but  its  duties  were  actually  performed  by  the  Comptroller 
and  the  Collector.  After  1862  taxes  in  arrears  as  well  as 
those  for  the  current  year  were  collected  by  the  Collector. 
In  1872  the  title  of  Board  of  Commissioners  of  Finance 
was  changed  to  that  of  Department  of  Finance,  and  the 
income  from  all  real  estate  and  corporate  securities  belong- 
ing to  the  city,  and  the  proceeds  of  all  taxes  levied  for  sink- 
ing fund  purposes  were  specifically  appropriated  to  the  De- 
partment for  the  amortization  of  the  funded  debt.'  Despite 
the  repeated  recommendations  of  the  Comptroller,  the  au- 
diting power  of  that  official  was  never  extended  so  as  to  in- 
clude the  fiscal  operations  of  the  Department  of  Finance.* 
The  fiscal  year  of  the  corporation  corresponded  with  the 
secular  year,  save  for  a  brief  period  from  1873  to  1877,  dur- 
ing which  municipal  accounting  was  made  to  terminate  on 
October  31  of  each  year. 

The  Budget. 

The  essential  form  of  the  municipal  budget  and  the  gen- 
eral course  of  budgetary  procedure  had  been  definitely  es- 
tablished in  Baltimore  before  1856  and  underwent  no  im- 
portant modification  thereafter.  To  recapitulate  what  has 
been  already  stated  elsewhere:*  at  the  close  of  each  fiscal 
year,  detailed  estimates  of  expenditures  for  the  ensuing 
twelvemonth  were  sent  by  the  heads  of  the  several  munici- 
pal departments  to  the  City  Register,  who  summarized  them 
and  added  thereto  the  existing  unpaid  claims  against  the 
city  ("  floating  debt ").  This  aggregate  represented  merely 
the  direct  charges  upon  the  municipal  treasury,  and  did  not 

^  See  below,  p.  270. 

*  Ordinance  of  March  27,  1872,  No.  26. 

'  Reports  of  City  Comptroller  of  November  I,  1871;  November  i, 
1872;  November  i,  1875. 

*  See  above,  p.  98. 


206  THE   FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

include  such  indirect  costs  as  that  involved  in  the  operation 
of  water-supply,  and  in  the  maintenance  of  the  parks,  for 
which  purposes  specific  sources  of  revenue  were  appro- 
priated. The  City  Register  also  prepared  a  memorandum 
of  estimated  receipts  from  sources  other  than  current  taxa-- 
tion.  These  two  summaries  were  submitted  to  the  City 
Council  and  referred  to  the  joint  Ways  and  Means  Commit- 
tee, as  were  also  the  Appeal  Tax  Court's  estimate  of  the  tax- 
able basis  for  the  ensuing  year  and  the  City  Collector's  esti- 
mate of  the  proportion  of  taxes  collectible  within  the  year. 
With  these  data  as  a  basis,  the  municipal  budget  was  deter- 
mined. 

The  budget,  as  presented  to  the  City  Council,  consisted  of 
a  general  appropriation  bill  and  a  series  of  specific  tax  levies 
aggregating  the  total  municipal  tax  rate.  The  mode  of 
submission  and  enactment  was  that  of  an  ordinary  munici- 
pal ordinance;  but  in  actual  practice  the  bills  presented  by 
the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  were  commonly  adopted 
by  the  City  Council  without  change.  The  general  appro- 
priation bill  was  however  often  supplemented  in  the  interval 
between  the  adoption  of  the  budget  and  the  close  of  the 
fiscal  year  by  the  passage  of  special  appropriation  bills  to 
be  met  from  out  of  unappropriated  funds  in  the  city 
treasury  or  in  some  other  extraordinary  manner.  This 
vicious  practice  was  largely  responsible  for  the  periodic  ac- 
cumulation of  floating  indebtedness  and  for  other  defects  in 
local  finances.^  The  survival  of  the  practice  of  levying  dis- 
tinct rates,  nominally  for  the  diflFerent  items  of  municipal 
expenditure,  instead  of  one  aggregate  rate  to  provide  the 
total  amount  required  by  direct  taxation,  formed  a  curious 
archaism  in  the  budgetary  procedure  of  Baltimore.  Ihe 
proceeds  of  the  several  rates  were  paid  into  the  municipal 
treasury,  subject  to  ordinary  appropriation,  and  were  .never 
segregated  as  distinct  funds.  Whatever  practical  signifi- 
cance the  practice  may  have  originally  possessed  was  early 

^  See  below,  p.  330. 


THE    FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    1857-1897       20/ 

lost,  and  its  later  effect  was  simply  to  bewilder  the  tax-payer 
and  to  complicate  the  bookkeeping  of  the  Collector's  de- 
partment.^ 

^  The  system  of  separate  levy  ordinance  was  finally  abandoned  in 
1899,  and  a  single  ordinance  imposed  the  aggregate  tax  rate.  But 
provision  was  made  that  receipts  should  be  "  apportioned "  as 
though  imposed  in  the  form  of  separate  levies  of  designated 
amount. 

An  interesting  suggestion  has  been  made  to  me  by  a  distinguished 
lawyer  of  Baltimore,  to  the  eflfect  that  the  city  might  perhaps  have 
been  prevented  by  legal  process  from  devoting  the  proceeds  of  a 
special  tax  levy  to  any  purpose  other  than  that  prescribed  in  the 
levy  ordinance.  The  point,  which  might  also  be  raised  in  connec- 
tion with  the  "  apportionment "  of  the  1899  levy,  has  never,  I  be- 
lieve, been  submitted  to  judicial  determination. 


CHAPTER  II 


MUNICIPAL  EXPENDITTJBE. 


The  advent  of  the  modern  era  in  the  administrative  and 
financial  history  of  Baltimore  was  signalized  by  a  sharp  in- 
crease in  municipal  expenditure,.  A  metropolitan  police 
force,  a  paid  fire  department,  a  municipal  water  service,  a 
series  of  public  parks,  and  a  growing  public  school  system 
introduced  new  elements  of  importance  into  the  municipal 
budget  and  entailed  a  progressive  increase  in  municipal  ex- 
penditure. The  net  disbursements  of  the  city  in  i860  were 
more  than  three  times  as  great  as  in  1850  and  nearly  twice 
as  great  in  1870  as  in  i860.  This  rapid  rate  of  increase  ter- 
minated in  1870,  and  in  the  succeeding  decade  municipal 
expenditures  remained  practically  uniform.  After  1880  the 
growth  in  expenditure  was  continuous  and  large  in  abso- 
lute amount;  but  the  rate  of  increase  was  less  than  in  the 
period  before  1870. 

The  explanation  of  this  relatively  slower  growth  in  the 
ordinary  expenses  of  the  city  government  after  1870  is  to 
be  found  in  the  increasing  rigidity  of  municipal  revenue. 
The  need  and  the  desire  for  progressively  increasing  expen- 
diture were  present  throughout  the  subsequent  twenty-five 
years — repeatedly  to  the  point  of  administrative  embarrass- 
ment. But  with  the  slow  increase  in  the  taxable  basis  and 
the  inappreciable  growth  in  revenues  from  sources  other 
than  direct  taxation,  the  only  method  of  defraying  larger 
municipal  disbursements  was  by  raising  the  rate  of  the  gen- 
eral property  tax.  This  soon  attained  burdensome  propor- 
tions and  further  additions  meant  to  imperil  the  success  of 
the  party  in  power  at  the  ensuing  municipal  election.  The 
periodic  accumulation  and  funding  of  floating  indebtedness 
afforded  some  margin  for  increased  expenditure,  but  the 

(208) 


THE    FINANCES    OF    BALTIMORE    CITY,    1857-1897       2O9 

practise  was  early  discredited.  In  consequence  the  ordi- 
nary rule  of  public  finance  was  reversed,  and  revenues  lim- 
ited expenditures  instead  of  expenditures  determining  reve- 
nue. 

After  1886  the  occasion  for  largely  increased  expendi- 
ture for  street  paving,  school  houses,  water  sewers  and 
bridges  became  imperative  and  resort  was  had  to  funded 
loans.^  Increased  requirements  in  other  branches  of  mu- 
nicipal service  were  met  by  a  steady  rise  in  the  rate  of  prop- 
erty taxation  to  the  oppressive  figure  levied  at  the  close  of 
the  period. 

Streets  and  Roadways. 

The  care  of  the  city's  roadways,  including  the  paving  and 
repaving  of  streets,  the  erection  and  repair  of  bridges  and 
the  construction  of  sewers,  remained  vested  in  the  hands  of 
the  City  Commissioner.  Similarly,  the  functions  of  street 
cleaning  and  street  reconstruction  continued  entrusted  to 
distinct  and  independent  municipal  officials.  In  1856  the 
"  City  Commissioner's  Office  "  consisted  of  a  City  Commis- 
sioner, an  Assistant  City  Commissioner  and  a  varied  sub- 
ordinate force.  This  organization  was  replaced  in  1861 
upon  the  recommendation  of  Mayor  George  William  Brown 
by  the  revival  of  the  old  composite  board  of  three  City  Com- 
missioners and  Port  Wardens.*  The  change  was  found  to 
work  neither  efficiently  nor  economically,  and  in  1863  the 
offices  of  City  Commissioner  and  Assistant  City  Commis- 
sioner were  revived.*  The  number  of  Assistant  City  Com- 
missioners was  increased  to  three  in  1875,  and  the  tenure 
of  both  City  Commissioners  and  Assistant  City  Commis- 
sioner was  changed,  with  that  of  other  city  officers,  from 
one  to  two  years  in  1887.* 

*  See  below,  p.  320. 

*  Message  of  January  7,  1861,  p.  5;  Ordinance  of  February  28, 
1861,  No.  3. 

*  Mayor's  Message  of  January  8,  1863,  p.  8;  Ordinance  of  Feb- 
ruary 14,  1863,  No.  6. 

^  Ordinances  of  June  10,  1875,  No.  112;  February  25,  1887,  No.  4. 
o 


210  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

The  radical  reorganization  of  the  City  Commissioner's 
department  was  repeatedly  urged  by  Mayor  F.  C.  Latrobe  * 
between  1880  and  1892,  but  without  effect.  The  plan  most 
frequently  recommended  was  the  displacement  of  the  City 
Commissioner  by  an  unsalaried  board  of  from  three  to  six 
commissioners,  acting  essentially  as  a  Board  of  Public 
Works.  The  detailed  operations  of  the  department  were 
to  be  in  charge  of  a  skilled  engineer,  appointed  by  the  board 
and  subject  to  its  control  and  direction.  In  1895  ^^^  bien- 
nial appointment  of  a  City  Commissioner  and  three  Assist- 
ant City  Commissioners  was  confirmed.  Specific  provision 
was  made  that  the  Assistant  Commissioners  should  be  under 
the  direction  of  the  head  of  the  department,  and  that  the 
participation  of  an  official  in  any  business  or  pursuit  other 
than  that  appertaining  to  his  formal  duties  should  be 
deemed  sufficient  cause  for  removal  by  the  Mayor.''  This 
ordinance  resulted  in  a  change  of  the  personnel  of  the  de- 
partment and  in  an  increase  of  salaries,  but  left  its  organi- 
zation otherwise  unaffected. 

Street  Paving  and  Repair.  The  paving  and  repair  of 
streets,  which  formed  the  most  important  activity  of  the 
City  Commissioner  after  1856,  included  at  least  three  func- 
tions closely  related  in  character  but  more  or  less  distinct 
in  fiscal  treatment:  (i)  paving  and  grading  of  unpaved 
streets;  (2)  partial  repair  of  paved  streets;  (3)  repaving  of 
streets  already  paved. 

(i)  Unpaved  streets  were  graded  and  paved  by  the  City 
Commissioner  upon  the  application  of  the  owners  of  a  ma- 
jor part  of  the  ground  binding  thereon,  or  upon  the  passage 
of  a  specific  enabling  ordinance.  The  total  expenditure — 
including  the  cost  of  collection  but  not  that  of  paving  cross 
streets,  which  was  paid  by  the  city — was  levied  as  a  special 
assessment  upon  abutting  property  in  proportion  to  front- 
age.    The  requirement  that  pavements  or  footways  must 

^Thus  see  Mayor's   Messages  of  January   i,   1881,  and  January 
I,  1892. 
'  Ordinance  of  May  17,  1895,  No.  71. 


THE    FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    1857-1897       211 

be  laid  and  kept  in  repair  by  the  owners  of  fronting  prop- 
erty underwent  no  important  change.  The  contract  sys- 
tem, already  in  vogue  for  the  repaying  and  repair  of  streets, 
was  in  1859  extended  to  the  grading  and  paving  of  unpaved 
streets.^  As  population  increased  and  residential  areas  were 
extended  to  the  corporate  limits,  the  number  of  unpaved 
streets  was  rapidly  reduced  and  municipal  expenditure  for 
initial  paving  was  largely  limited  to  that  made  necessary  by 
street  reconstruction.  Streets  were  often  opened,  graded 
and  paved,  and  then  deeded  to  the  city  by  owners  of  large 
suburban  areas,  in  the  hope  of  hastening  the  development 
of  the  surrounding  district.' 

(2)  The  statute  of  1833  authorized  the  repaying  of  any 
street  of  the  city  upon  the  application  of  the  owners  of  two- 
thirds  of  the  abutting  property.  Two-thirds  of  the  expendi- 
ture involved  was  defrayed  by  special  assessment — the  re- 
mainder by  municipal  appropriation.*  This  procedure  con- 
tinued until  1874,  when  the  requisite  condition  was  reduced 
to  the  application  of  the  owners  of  one-half,  instead  of  two- 
thirds  of  the  abutting  property.*  In  the  absence  of  such 
application  the  improvement  might  be  effected  by  the  pas- 
sage of  a  specific  enabling  ordinance.  In  1874  the  city  be- 
gan slowly  to  repave  its  principal  thoroughfares  with  Bel- 
gian blocks,  distributing  the  cost  as  above. 

But  even  after  the  introduction  of  Belgian  block  paving 
and  recognition  of  its  superiority,  the  larger  part  of  local 
repaying  continued  to  be  done  in  cobblestones.  Between 
1874  and  1 88 1,  5,405,394  square  feet  of  cobblestones  were 
laid  and  only  87,628  square  yards  of  Belgian  blocks.''  The 
general  character  of  the  work  done  was  graphically  des- 
cribed by  Mayor  F.  C.  Latrobe  in  1881,  as  "  the  very  poor- 
est  of   its   kind."     The   fixity   of   real   estate   values   and 

*  Ordinance  of  March  23,  1859,  No.  34. 

*  The  careless  acceptance  of  such  gifts  by  the  city  has  appreciably 
contributed  to  the  irregularity  of  its  suburban  thoroughfares. 

'  See  above,  p.  103. 

*  Ordinance  of  June  4,  1874,  No.  44. 

*  Report  of  City  Commissioner,  January  i,  1878.  j 


212  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

the  burden  of  direct  taxation  discouraged  any  general  em- 
ployment of  the  special  assessment  for  the  costly  replace- 
ment of  cobblestones  by  modern  pavements.  The  use  of 
short  term  funded  loans  of  moderate  amount  for  this  pur- 
pose was  recommended  by  the  city  executives  in  1876  and 
in  1879.  This  dangerous  procedure  was  first  employed  in 
1880  in  the  form  of  a  "paving  loan "  of  $500,000,  and 
thereafter  formed  the  characteristic  feature  of  modern  re- 
paving.  In  1888  the  issue  of  $1,000,000  city  stock,  redeem- 
able in  1928,  and  in  1892  the  issue  of  $1,600,000,  redeemable 
in  1940,  were  authorized  for  this  purpose.  The  cost  of  re- 
paving  important  streets  with  asphalt  blocks  after  1888  was 
paid  from  out  the  proceeds  of  these  loans. 

(3)  Street  repair,  like  street  paving  and  repaving,  was 
originally  done  by  contract  through  the  agency  and  under 
the  supervision  of  the  City  Commissioner.  The  actual  ex- 
penditure of  the  city  for  this  purpose  continued  in  excess 
of  the  amount  annually  appropriated,  yet  the  condition  of 
the  streets  remained  materially  unimproved.  In  1858  the 
City  Commissioner  himself  described  them  as  "  in  worse 
condition  than  they  have  been  for  many  years;  in  many 
places  almost,  if  not  entirely,  impassable." '  In  1865  the 
repair  of  streets  by  the  direct  employment  of  day  labor,  in- 
stead of  by  contract  was  strongly  recommended.^  The 
change  was  actually  made  several  years  later,  and  the  day 
labor  system  continued  thereafter  in  force,. 

No  form  of  municipal  expenditure  was  so  sharply  criti- 
cised by  reform  sentiment  in  Baltimore  as  that  involved  in 
the  paving  and  repair  of  streets.  There  were  occasional 
charges  of  outright  corruption  and  criminal  waste,  and  a 
disposition  was  widespread  to  regard  municipal  expendi- 
ture for  this  purpose  as  throughout  unfavorably  dispropor- 
tionate to  the  improvement  effected.  The  organization  of 
the  City  Commissioner's  department  and  the  conditions  of 
labor  employment  there  prevailing  were  in  largest  part  re- 

*  Report  of  City  Commissioner,  January  i,  1858,  p.  140. 
'  Report  of  City  Commissioner,  January  i,  1865,  p.  164. 


THE   FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    1857-1897      2I3 

sponsible  for  this  result/  There  was  never  a  pretense  at 
conducting  the  affairs  of  the  department  upon  any  other 
than  a  political  basis  of  the  cheapest  sort.  The  inevitable 
effect  of  these  influences  was  however  intensified  by  the  re- 
peated tearing  up  of  streets  and  their  wretched  replacement 
by  corporations  and  individuals — the  former  engaged  in 
laying  gas-mains,  the  latter  in  placing  drain-pipes.  Within 
a  limited  period,  Baltimore  was  afflicted  with  five  successive 
gas  companies,  each  of  which  tore  up  the  most  important 
thoroughfares  of  the  city  and  replaced  them  in  a  manner 
requiring  early  repair  by  the  city.  Similarly  a  mere  appli- 
cation to  the  City  Commissioner  secured  a  license  to  lay 
drain-pipes  from  private  premises  to  a  city  water  sewer.* 

Sewers.  At  the  beginning  of  the  period  here  considered, 
Baltimore  was  entirely  dependent  upon  surface  drainage  for 
the  disposition  of  its  sewerage.  A  few  miles  of  under- 
ground drains  had  been  laid  to  overcome  grades  in  the  sur- 
face, but  these  were  built  in  the  crudest  manner  and  utterly 
without  system."  The  Board  of  Health,  endeavoring  in 
1856  to  learn  something  of  the  disposition  of  the  city's  sew- 
age, found  that  "  there  is  not  now,  and  apparently  there 
never  has  been,  a  plat  of  the  sewers  prepared  or  recorded 
in  this  office.  No  one  can  now  tell  the  forms,  sizes,  grades 
of  descent,  connections  nor  directions  of  the  sewers."  * 

Attention  appears  to  have  been  directed  to  the  inadequacy 
of  the  existing  system,  less  because  of  its  effect  upon  the 
health  and  sanitary  condition  of  the  city  than  because  of  the 
loss  and  inconvenience  suffered  from  the  periodic  flooding 

*  All  laborers  employed  by  the  city  were  required  to  be  registered 
voters  and  to  receive  a  minimum  wage  of  $1,665^  for  an  eight-hour 
working  day. 

*  In  many  cases  a  special  resolution  of  the  City  Council  per- 
mitted private  drains  to  be  laid  even  without  the  payment  of  the 
nominal  fee  otherwise  charged. 

'  See  above,  page  105. 

*  Report  of  Board  of  Health,  January  i,  1857.  It  is  said  that 
even  at  the  present  time  the  city  is  without  accurate  knowledge 
relating  to  certain  of  its  important  storm-water  sewers. 


214  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

of  houses  and  cellars  through  the  inability  of  gutters  and 
drains  to  carry  off  the  volume  of  storm  water.  In  1859  at 
the  instance  of  Mayor  Thomas  Swann  a  commission  of  three 
persons  was  appointed  "  to  report  upon  a  full,  comprehen- 
sive and  adequate  system  of  underground  drainage,  as  well 
as  how  our  present  sewers,  tunnels  and  culverts  can  be  al- 
tered and  adapted  to  that  end;  what  new  works  are  requi- 
site, as  well  as  the  cost  thereof."  ^  Certain  cities  were  vis- 
ited, expert  opinion  was  secured  and  in  1862  a  report  was 
presented  recommending  the  construction  of  additional 
drains  for  the  reception  of  house  drainage  and  surface 
water.  The  additional  sewers  recommended  aggregated 
5%  miles  and  involved  an  estimated  expenditure  of$9i,49i.' 
The  report  of  the  commission  was  approved  by  a  joint 
committee  of  the  City  Council,  who  recommended  the  levy 
of  a  special  assessment  on  property  to  the  amount  of  the 
benefit  accruing  from  the  construction  of  the  sewers  and 
the  appropriation  of  any  necessary  balance  from  out  the 
city  treasury." 

The  stirring  events  of  the  Civil  War  diverted  attention 
from  the  recommendations  of  the  commission  and  left  the 
situation  essentially  unchanged  until  several  years  after  the 
actual  cessation  of  hostilities.  Preparation  was  made  in 
1868,  in  accordance  with  a  special  enabling  act  of  the  legis- 
lature,* for  an  improvement  of  the  sewage  methods  of  the 
city  in  much  the  manner  recommended  by  the  commission 
of  1859.  The  Commissioners  for  Opening  Streets  and  the 
City  Commissioner  were  constituted  a  board  of  "  commis- 
sioners for  the  construction  of  sewers,"  and  were  author- 
ized, whenever  directed  by  ordinance  of  the  City  Council, 
to  construct,  open,  enlarge  or  straighten  any  sewer,  to  eflfect 
the  improvement,  to  award  damages  and  to  levy  a  special 

*  Resolution  of  September  26,  1859,  No.  248. 

*  See  Report  of  Sewerage  Commission  in  "  Municipal  Reports," 
1862,  pp.  615-631. 

*  Municipal  Reports,"  1862,  pp.  633-635. 

*  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1868,  ch.  i. 


THE   FINANCES   OF   BALTIMORE   CITY,    1857-1897      215 

assessment  upon   the  property   benefited.     Any   resulting 
deficit  was  to  be  met  by  direct  municipal  appropriation/ 

In  the  decade  from  1869  to  1879  a  limited  number  of 
sewers  or  storm-water  drains  were  constructed  in  the  man- 
ner provided  by  this  ordinance.  The  work  remained,  nomi- 
nally, vested  in  the  composite  board  of  commissioners  for 
the  construction  of  sewers;  but  practically,  construction  as 
well  as  repair  were  put  in  the  charge  of  the  City  Commis- 
sioner/ After  1879  successive  Boards  of  Health  and  city 
executives  called  attention  in  forcible  terms  to  the  evil  ef- 
fects of  cesspools  and  surface  drainage  upon  public  health 
and  municipal  development.  Under  Mayor  Ferdinand  C. 
Latrobe  in  1881  a  civil  engineer  was  appointed  by  a  joint 
resolution  of  the  City  Council  to  examine  and  report  upon 
the  question  of  establishing  a  general  system  of  sewerage 
in  the  city.  A  report  was  made  to  the  same  Council,  but, 
although  endorsed  by  the  committee  to  which  it  was  re- 
ferred, it  resulted  in  no  practical  action. 

The  introduction  of  the  Gunpowder  water-supply  in  1881, 
by  stimulating  the  use  of  house  fixtures,  resulted  in  an 
enormous  increase  in  the  domestic  consumption  of  water 
and  a  consequent  strain  upon  the  primitive  methods  in 
vogue  for  the  disposition  of  surface  water  and  general  sew- 
age. This  recurring  emergency,  accented  by  "  the  growth 
of  the  city,  the  extension  of  its  paved  streets,  and  the  cov- 
ering of  its  vacant  lots  with  continuous  rows  of  houses  " 
was  met,  to  the  minimum  degree  necessary,  by  three  de- 
vices: (i)  the  construction  and  extension  of  additional  so- 
called  sewers — in  reality  mere  storm-water  drains;  (2)  con- 
nection of  private  cesspools  with  the  public  storm-drains 
for  the  purpose  of  getting  rid  of  the  overflow — a  privilege 
"  at  first  refused  absolutely,  then  granted  conditionally,  and 
later  accorded  freely,  then  again  resolutely  refused,  and  at 
present  once  more  permitted  under  circumstances  and  con- 
ditions appealing  to  the  favorable  judgment  of  the  authori- 

^  Ordinance  of  May  7,  1868,  No.  52. 

*  Cf.  Report  of  City  Commissioner,  November  i,  1875. 


2l6  THE   FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

ties  ";  (3)  construction  of  private  drains  by  corporations  and 
persons  of  wealth  from  their  premises  to  the  nearest  water 
course,  where  storm-water  drains  have  not  been  available. 

The  construction  and  extension  of  water-drains  after  1879 
together  with  the  maintenance  and  repair  of  those  already 
in  existence  entailed  a  large  municipal  expenditure.  In 
1897  the  aggregate  length  of  the  storm-drains  was  esti- 
mated at  some  33  miles,  constructed  at  a  cost  of  not  far 
from  $4,000,000.'  This  money  was  provided  generally  by 
the  issue  of  funded  loans.  For  the  construction  of  the  im- 
portant Harford  Run  Sewer,  loans  of  $250,000  in  1879  and 
$350,000  in  1884  were  authorized.  The  "  Five  Million 
Loan  "  of  1888  included  $1,750,000  for  the  construction  of 
storm  sewers  and  the  "  Six  Million  Loan  "  of  1892  provided 
for  an  expenditure  of  $1,000,000  for  the  same  purpose.^  By 
January  i,  1897  practically  the  entire  amount  authorized  by 
these  loans  had  been  expended. 

While  costly  provision  was  thus  being  made  for  mere 
surface  drainage,  attention  was  from  time  to  time  directed 
to  the  inevitable  inadequacy  of  such  expenditures  and  to 
the  urgent  necessity  for  some  general  sewerage  system.' 
This  agitation  culminated  in  1893,  when  an  unsalaried  com- 
mission of  three  persons  was  appointed  "  to  examine  into 
the  necessity  for  a  more  perfect  system  of  sewerage  for  the 
city  of  Baltimore."  *  After  an  exhaustive  investigation  ex- 
tending over  a  period  of  more  than  four  years,  the  commis- 
sion under  the  chairmanship  of  Mr.  Mendes  Cohen,  a  rep- 
resentative citizen  and  a  distinguished  engineer  of  Balti- 
more, presented  a  notable  report  upon  which  the  future 
sewerage  system  of  Baltimore  will  doubtless  be  based.  It 
recommended  the  separate  collection  and  separate  disposi- 
tion  of  storm-water   and  domestic   sewage.     Storm-water 

^ "  Report  of  Sewerage  Commission,"  1897,  p.  10. 
^  See  below,  pp.  320-321. 

*  Mayor's  Messages  of  January  i,  1884,  p.  61;  January  31,  1887, 
p.  57;  January,  1891,  p.  59- 

*  Resolution  of  May  25,  1893,  No.  189. 


THE    FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    1857-1897      217 

should  pass  by  way  of  the  existing  drains  and  natural  water- 
courses to  the  river  and  harbor  as  now.  Domestic  sew- 
age should  be  collected  by  a  system  of  high  level  and  low 
level  intercepting  sewers  and  disposed  of  by  a  continuous 
discharge  into  Chesapeake  Bay.  An  alternative  method  of 
disposal  was  offered  in  the  form  of  filtration  upon  lands  in 
Anne  Arundel  County.  The  dilution  method  was  recom- 
mended by  the  commission  as  serving  practically  the  same 
purposes,  while  its  final  cost  of  completion  was  estimated  as 
less  than  one-half  and  its  annual  cost  of  working  about  one- 
third  as  much  as  the  other.^ 

Bridges.  With  the  growth  of  the  city's  traffic  and  the 
spread  of  population  to  the  west  and  northwest,  the  more  or 
less  temporary  bridges  before  in  use  became  inadequate 
and  in  absolute  need  of  continual  repair,  necessitating  an 
annual  appropriation  to  the  City  Commissioner  for  mere 
maintenance. 

Special  provision  was  made  from  time  to  time  for  the 
construction  of  new  bridges.  The  important  improvement 
of  Jones'  Falls,  projected  in  1870  and  noticed  elsewhere,* 
involved  the  construction  of  permanent  structures  across 
certain  of  the  most  important  thoroughfares  of  the  city.' 
The  large  expenditures  therein  entailed  were  defrayed  from 
out  the  proceeds  of  the  Jones'  Falls  improvement  loans,  and 
the  work  was  performed  under  the  direction  of  the  special 
Jones'  Falls  Commission.  The  "  Five  Million  Loan  "  of 
1888  and  the  "  Six  MilHon  Loan  "  of  1892  authorized  extra- 
ordinary expenditures  for  bridge  construction  of  $250,000 
and  $600,000,  respectively. 

^  The  approximate  cost  for  the  first  installation  of  the  filtration 
project  (to  which  public  opinion  seems  to  incline)  is  about  $3,- 
250,000.  For  the  completion  of  the  system  so  as  to  serve  the  needs 
of  a  population  of  one  million,  the  estimated  cost  is  about  $6,- 
700,000  additional.  These  figures  do  not  include  the  cost  of  the 
reticulation  system  which  it  is  proposed  to  defray  by  the  levy  of  a 
special  assessment  upon  property  benefited. 

*  See  below,  p.  319. 

*  Mayors'  Messages  of  January  i,  1880,  p.  22;  January  i,  1881, 
p.  42. 


2l8  the  financial  history  of  baltimore 

Street  Reconstruction. 

For  several  years  after  1856,  the  important  function 
of  street  reconstruction  remained  under  the  control  of  the 
Board  of  Commissioners  for  Opening  Streets,  without  im- 
portant change  in  existing  procedure/  In  1861,  Mayor 
George  William  Brown  recommended  the  abolition  of  the 
board  and  the  transfer  of  its  duties  to  the  Appeal  Tax  Court, 
which  was  deemed  "  peculiarly  fitted  to  discharge  them  by 
reason  of  the  intimate  acquaintance  of  the  judges  of  that 
court  with  the  value  of  property  in  the  city."  "  This  recom- 
mendation was  promptly  adopted  and  during  the  next  five 
years  the  powers  before  vested  in  the  commissioners  were 
exercised  by  the  Appeal  Tax  Court.  A  per  diem  compen- 
sation, which  had  been  one  of  the  objectionable  features  of 
the  old  system,  continued  to  be  assessed  as  part  of  the  ex- 
penses of  the  particular  improvement;  but  the  proceeds 
were  paid  into  the  city  treasury  and  the  members  of  the 
Appeal  Tax  Court  received  definite  salaries." 

In  1866  upon  the  representation  of  the  judges  of  the 
Appeal  Tax  Court  that  the  combined  functions  of  street  re- 
construction and  tax  assessment  were  more  than  could  be 
properly  performed  by  a  single  agency,  the  former  board 
of  three  Commissioners  for  Opening  Streets  was  revived 
and  again  entrusted  with  the  extension  and  reconstruction 
of  the  city's  streets.*  A  more  important  change  effected  by 
the  same  ordinance  was  in  regard  to  the  method  of  defray- 
ing the  cost  of  the  reconstruction.  The  entire  cost  involved 
in  any  improvement,  including  all  damages  awarded,  had 
theretofore  been  levied  as  a  special  assessment  upon  the 
property-owners  benefited.  Latterly  with  the  growth  in  the 
city's  density  and  the  increase  in  the  value  of  its  real  estate, 

*  Thus  see  Ordinance  of  April  14,  1857,  No.  30. 

*  Message  of  January  7,  1861,  p.  5. 

*  Ordinance  of  February  28,  1861,  No.  4. 

*  Ordinance  of  April  3,  1866,  No.  26.  The  tenure  of  office  of  the 
Commissioners  was  increased  from  one  to  three  years  in  1876 
(Ordinance  of  May  31,  1876,  No.  100)  and  reduced  to  two  years  in 
1887  (Ordinance  of  February  25,  1887,  No.  4). 


THE   FINANCES   OF   BALTIMORE   CITY,    1857-1897      2I9 

this  procedure  had  entailed  an  increasing  burden  upon 
property-owners,  and  had  stimulated  the  practise  of  secur- 
ing street  reconstructions  for  speculative  purposes.  The 
ordinance  of  1866  provided  that  the  special  assessment 
should  be  levied  only  to  the  amount  of  the  estimated  benefit, 
and  that  any  deficit  resulting  from  the  greater  cost  of  the 
improvement  should  be  paid  by  direct  municipal  appropria- 
tion/ No  essential  change  was  made  in  the  mode  of  effect- 
ing the  extension  or  reconstruction.  Whenever  directed  by 
specific  municipal  ordinance,  the  Commissioners  proceeded 
after  due  public  notice  to  eflfect  the  improvement,  and  to 
award  damages  and  to  assess  benefits  in  the  manner  herein- 
after described.' 

As  long  as  the  benefiting  property-owners  were  assessed 
to  the  gross  cost  of  the  improvement,  street  reconstruction 
involved  no  considerable  direct  municipal  outlay.  This 
state  of  affairs  underwent  radical  change  in  1866  with  the 
adoption  of  the  principle  of  levying  the  special  assessment 
only  to  the  amount  of  estimated  benefit  and  of  supplying  the 
remainder  by  municipal  appropriation.  In  1869  a  levy  to 
defray  the  cost  of  street  reconstruction  appeared  for  the  first 
time  in  the  tax  rate,  and  thereafter  annual  appropriations  of 
considerable  amount  were  made  for  this  purpose.  In  1871 
it  was  proposed  to  limit  the  liability  of  the  city  to  one-third 
of  the  expenditures  incurred  in  street  reconstruction,'  and 
in  1880  the  revival  of  the  earlier  form  of  special  assessment 
was  recommended ;  *  but  neither  plan  was  adopted.  A  more 
successful  suggestion  was  made  in  1884,  to  the  effect  that 
the  cost  of  important  reconstructions  be  defrayed  from  out 
the  proceeds  of  funded  loans  instead  of  out  of  current  reve- 
nues." The  "  Five  Million  Loan  "  of  1882  and  the  "  Six 
Million  Loan"  of  1892  authorized  expenditures  of  $1,200,- 

*  That  is  to  say,  "  should  be  assessed  upon  the  city." 

*  See  below,  p.  287. 

*  Report  of  City  Comptroller,  January  i,  1871,  p.  131. 

*  Mayor's  Message  of  January  i,  1880,  p.  33. 
'  Mayor's  Message  of  January  i,  1884,  P-  66. 


220  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

ooo  and  $300,000,  respectively,  for  this  purpose.  Certain 
of  the  most  expensive  street  reconstructions  in  succeeding 
years  were  made  possible  by  the  funds  thus  provided. 

Street  Cleaning. 

Despite  urban  growth,  the  functions  of  street-cleaning 
and  scavenging  remained  under  the  nominal  control  of  the 
Board  of  Health.  The  work  was  actually  directed  by  five 
Superintendents  of  Streets,  appointed  by  the  Mayor,  and 
charged  with  the  care  of  designated  sections  of  the  city. 
The  day  labor  system  was  employed,  and  each  Superintend- 
ent appointed  his  own  force.  There  was  neither  unification 
nor  responsibility  in  the  system. 

In  1872,  with  a  view  to  securing  some  general  superin- 
tendence of  the  work,  the  Assistant  Commissioner  of  Health 
was  put  in  control  of  the  department  of  street-cleaning  "  in 
all  matters  that  relate  to  the  operations  and  efficiency  of  the 
same,  its  economy  in  the  employment  of  labor  and  the  dis- 
bursement of  money  for  such  service."  He  was  required 
not  only  to  inspect  and  direct  the  work  of  the  Superintend- 
ents, but  to  examine  their  weekly  reports  and  to  audit  their 
pay-rolls.^  In  1882  Mayor  F.  C.  Latrobe  urged  that  the 
functions  of  street-cleaning  and  scavenging  be  entirely  with- 
drawn from  the  Board  of  Health  and  be  vested  in  a  special 
department  in  charge  of  a  "  commissioner  of  street-clean- 
ing." *  The  letter  rather  than  the  spirit  of  this  recommen- 
dation was  incorporated  in  an  ordinance  of  1882.  Pro- 
vision was  therein  made  for  the  annual  appointment  by  the 
Mayor  of  a  Commissioner  of  Street-cleaning  who  was 
vested  with  "  exclusive  charge  of  the  cleaning  of  the  public 
streets,  lanes  and  alleys,  and  of  the  collection  and  removal 
of  ashes,  garbage,  street  and  household  refuse,  in  the  city 
of  Baltimore."  Specifically,  the  powers  before  exercised 
by  the  Health  Officers  with  respect  to  the  operations  and 

^  Ordinance  of  February  28,  1872,  No.  20. 
'  Message  of  January  23,  1882,  p.  16. 


THE    FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    1857-1897       221 

conduct  of  the  Superintendents  of  Streets  were  transferred 
to  the  Commissioner  for  Cleaning  Streets.  The  new  offi- 
cial was  also  authorized  to  change  the  dividing  lines  of  the 
six  street-cleaning  districts  of  the  city,  subject  to  the  ap- 
proval of  the  Mayor/  The  reorganization  resulting  from 
this  ordinance  was  nominal  rather  than  real.  An  independ- 
ent department  was  created,  but  the  only  real  change  in- 
volved was  that  the  general  superintendence  before  exer- 
cised by  the  Assistant  Commissioner  of  Health  was  there- 
after vested  in  the  Commissioner  of  Street-cleaning.  There 
was  no  centralization  of  responsibility  in  the  relation  of  the 
Commissioner  to  the  district  Superintendents  of  Streets. 
These  subordinate  officials  were  appointed  by  the  Mayor 
and  in  turn  appointed  their  laboring  force,  entirely  inde- 
pendent of  the  Commissioner.  In  other  words  the  adminis- 
trative head  of  the  department,  nominally  responsible  for 
its  efficiency,  was  utterly  without  any  direct  influence  in  the 
selection  and  regulation  of  its  personnel. 

Between  1882  and  1896  no  single  feature  of  the  city  ad- 
ministration was  so  confessedly  a  failure  and  in  such  ur- 
gent need  of  reorganization  as  the  street-cleaning  depart- 
ment. That  a  branch  of  municipal  service,  requiring  an 
expenditure  of  a  quarter  of  a  million  dollars  annually,  should 
have  been  organized  and  continued  in  operation  virtually 
without  an  executive  head,  was  properly  described  as 
"  simply  incomprehensible  to  the  minds  of  unsophisticated 
citizens." '  In  1887  Mayor  James  Hodges  declared  that 
"  the  people  are  inexpressibly  aggravated  at  this  condi- 
tion of  things  in  that  department  and  demand  reorganiza- 
tion without  delay."  *  Five  years  later.  Mayor  F.  C.  La- 
trobe  repeated  "  The  public  will  never  be  satisfied  until  this 
change  is  made.     It  is  common  sense  that  the  man  who  is 

*  Ordinance  of  February  21,  1882,  No.  6.  The  additional  district 
had  been  created  and  a  corresponding  Superintendent  appointed 
in  1881  (Ordinance  of  March  i,  1881,  No.  19). 

'  Mayor's  Message  of  January  31,  1887,  pp.  32-33. 

'  Ibid.,  p.  33. 


222  THE   FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

responsible  should  have  full  power  over  every  man  in  his 
department."  ^  Practically  every  Mayor's  message  pre- 
pared during  this  period  contained  a  more  or  less  forcible 
recommendation  for  the  reorganization  of  the  department. 
Yet  despite  this  apparent  unanimity  in  intelligent  sentiment, 
not  the  slightest  essential  change  was  made.  The  street- 
cleaning  department  continued  in  its  primitive  and  ineffi- 
cient organization  until  the  advent  of  the  new  city  charter.' 
Inefficiency  in  organization  resulted  in  costliness  of  main- 
tenance. During  the  greater  part  of  the  period  here  con- 
sidered, the  street-cleaning  department  was  relatively  one 
of  the  most  expensive  branches  of  municipal  service.  The 
topography  and  natural  environment  of  Baltimore  were 
potent  allies;  yet  at  no  time  were  the  results  attained  com- 
mensurate with  the  money  expended.  The  tenacity  with 
which  this  notoriously  inefficient  organization  was  retained 
is  explicable  in  the  peculiar  facilities  it  afforded  for  the  dis- 
pensation of  municipal  patronage  to  the  politically  deserv- 
ing." Striking  evidence  of  this  was  afforded  in  1890  when 
a  proposition  was  submitted  to  the  city  by  an  association  of 
responsible  citizens  to  engage  to  clean  the  streets  of  the 
city  for  a  period  of  five  years  for  the  sum  of  $175,000  per 
annum,  or  about  $110,000  less  than  was  expended  by  the 
city  for  this  purpose  in  1890.  Mayor  F.  C.  Latrobe  strongly 
advised  that  consideration  be  given  this  proposition,  or  least 
the  adoption  of  the  contract  system;  but  both  the  proposi- 
tion and  the  recommendation  were  ignored  by  the  City 
Council.* 

^  Mayor's  Message  of  January  i,  1892,  pp.  61-62. 

'  Not  until  1892  were  sweeping  machines  and  sprinklers  em- 
ployed, and  then  only  for  purposes  of  experiment;  see  Mayor's 
Message  of  January  i,  1893,  p.  47. 

*  Not  only  in  the  employment  of  laborers,  but  as  a  result  of  the 
sub-contract  system  whereby  one  person  undertook  to  supply  any 
number  of  carts  and  drivers  at  the  rate  of  $18  per  week,  as  fixed 
by  municipal  ordinance,  and  made  his  own  terms  with  his  sub- 
employees. 

*  Mayor's  Message  of  January  26,  1891,  pp.  47-48. 


;        the  finances  of  baltimore  city,  1857-1897    223 

Police. 

The  reorganization  of  the  local  police  force,  authorized 
by  the  legislature  in  1853,  actually  took  place  under  Mayor 
Thomas  Swann's  administration  in  1857/  The  existing 
night  watch  and  day  constabulary  were  then  consolidated 
in  a  general  police  force  under  the  control  of  a  marshal  an- 
nually appointed,  as  were  all  other  members  of  the  depart- 
ment, by  the  Mayor.  The  city  was  divided  into  four  police 
districts,  and  provision  was  made  for  a  patrol  force  of  three 
hundred  and  fifty  men.  This  reorganization  was  practically 
coincident  with  the  rise  and  growth  of  the  American  or 
Know-Nothing  party  in  Baltimore.  The  new  police  force, 
at  first  an  important  influence  in  repressing  riot  and  dis- 
order, was  rapidly  recruited  from  the  Know-Nothing  clubs, 
and  ultimately  became  the  ally  and  abettor  of  political  vio- 
lence and  outrage.' 

The  reform  party  gained  dominance  in  Maryland  in  i860, 
and  one  of  their  early  acts  was  to  transfer  the  control  of 
the  police  department  of  Baltimore  City  from  the  munici- 
pal authorities  to  the  state  legislature.  To  this  end  provis- 
ion was  made  for  the  election  by  the  General  Assembly 
of  a  Board  of  Police  Commissioners,  composed  of  four 
citizens  of  Baltimore,  serving  a  term  of  four  years.  One 
Commissioner  retired  every  second  year,  and  the  Mayor  of 
the  city  constituted  a  fifth  member  ex-oMcio.  The  new 
Board  was  authorized  to  organize  and  equip  a  metropolitan 
police  force  and  to  assume  full  control  thereof.  The  Com- 
missioners were  directed  to  submit  annually  to  the  corpo- 
ration an  estimate  of  the  sum  of  money  necessary  for  the 
discharge  of  the  duties  imposed  upon  them,  and  the  Mayor 

^  Ordinance  of  January  i,  1857,  No.  4;  authorized  by  "  Laws  of 
Maryland,"  1853,  ch.  46. 

'  The  nature  and  results  of  this  vicious  alliance  are  described  in 
detail  in  an  excellent  monograph  upon  "  The  History  of  the  Know- 
Nothing  Party  in  Maryland,"  by  Mr.  L.  F.  Schmeckebier,  in  the 
Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies  in  Historical  and  Political  Science, 
Seventeenth  Series,  Nos.  III-IV. 


224  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

and  City  Council  were  required  to  levy  this  amount  upon 
the  assessable  property  of  the  city.  In  default  of  such  ac- 
tion, the  Police  Commissioners  were  authorized  to  issue 
municipal  scrip  bearing  interest  at  six  per  cent,  and  pay- 
able at  not  more  than  twelve  months  after  date.^  The 
Board  was  required  to  make  periodic  reports  of  its  proceed- 
ings and  disbursements  to  the  General  Assembly.  The  first 
Police  Commissioners  were  named  in  the  statute,  and  the 
legality  of  the  reorganization  having  been  upheld  by  the 
courts,  the  new  system  went  into  effect  on  May  i,  1861. 
During  1861-62  the  police  force  of  the  city  was  under  the 
control  of  the  federal  authorities,  and  when  the  state  again 
assumed  control  in  1862,  it  was  under  a  new  police  law 
passed  in  that  year  by  a  legislature  in  full  sympathy  with 
the  federal  government.  The  Board  of  Police  was  reduced 
to  two  commissioners,  with  the  Mayor  ex-ofhcio,  and  an 
oath  of  allegiance  to  the  federal  government  was  prescribed 
as  a  preliminary  qualification.''  After  the  cessation  of  direct 
federal  interference  with  the  affairs  of  the  state  in  1867,  the 
Board  of  Police  Commissioners  was  reconstituted  so  as  to 
consist  of  three  persons,  elected  by  the  General  Assembly 
for  a  term  of  four  years.  The  Commissioners  were  required 
to  be  residents  of  Baltimore  for  three  years,  and  of  Mary- 
land for  five  years  preceding  the  day  of  their  election.  The 
financial  powers  of  the  Board  were  practically  as  provided 
in  the  reorganization  of  i860.*  In  1874  the  term  of  office 
of  the  Police  Commissioners  was  increased  to  six  years,  so 
arranged  that  one  member  retired  biennially." 

In  1867  the  surviving  remnant  of  local  control  over  the 
police  force  vanished  with  the  omission  of  the  provision 
making  the  Mayor  ex-ofHcio  a  member  of  the  Board  of  Po- 
lice Commissioners.  In  the  succeeding  period  the  entire 
independence  of  the  police  force  from  municipal  control 
formed  a  local  grievance  and  complaint.     The  propriety  of 

*  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  i860,  ch.  7. 
^  Ibid.,  1861-62,  ch.  131. 

« Ibid.,  1867,  ch.  367. 

*  Ibid.,  1874,  ch.  2. 


THE  FINANCES   OF  BALTIMORE   CITY,    1857-1897      225 

the  demand  that  "  the  City,  which  pays  all  the  bills,  should 
have  a  representative  in  the  Board  which  spends  the 
money  "  ^  was  represented  by  successive  city  executives,  and 
repeated  petitions  and  drafts  of  bills  were  vainly  submitted 
to  the  legislature  to  remedy  this  condition  of  affairs/  State 
control  of  the  municipal  police  force  was  aggravated  by  the 
periodic  interference  of  the  state  legislature  in  the  internal 
affairs  of  the  department,  as  by  the  enactment  of  mandatory 
legislation  for  an  increase  of  salaries  or  an  addition  to  the 
number  of  patrolmen,*  It  was  often  contended,  with  prob- 
able correctness,  that  the  reluctance  of  the  legislature  to  re- 
linquish control  of  the  city  police  force  was  due  less  to  any 
uneasiness  as  to  the  possible  recurrence  of  the  conditions 
prevailing  in  the  Know-Nothing  period,  than  to  the  loss  of 
the  degree  of  patronage  which  state  control  ensured  to  the 
county  members. 

Lighting, 

For  some  years  before  1856,  illuminating  gas  had  been 
generally  introduced  in  Baltimore  for  public  lighting,  and 
the  municipality  had  become  practically  dependent  upon 
private  enterprise  for  this  service.  The  project  of  munici- 
pal gas  works  was  renewed  from  time  to  time  thereafter,  but 
rather  as  an  expression  of  personal  sentiment  or  for  the 
purpose  of  influencing  the  policy  of  the  private  corporation 
than  with  a  view  to  any  practical  outcome.* 

^  Moreover,  "All  revenue  received  by  the  department  from  fines, 
etc.,  instead  of  being  paid  into  the  City  Treasury,  as  is  that  from 
every  other  department,  goes  into  what  is  called  the  reserve  fund 
of  the  Board,  and  is  used  as  the  Board  thinks  proper  in  building 
station-houses,  etc.  It  purchases  its  own  stationery,  instead  of 
obtaining  it,  as  do  all  other  City  departments,  through  the  City 
Librarian  "  (Mayor's  Message  of  January  i,  1892,  p.  84). 

'Mayors'  Messages  of  January  10,.  1876,  p.  75;  January  21,  1878, 
p.  7;  January  23,  1882,  p.  43;  January  31,  1887,  p.  84;  January  i, 
1892,  pp.  84-86;  Resolution  of  January  31,  1882,  No.  19. 

'Thus  see  Resolution  of  March  15,  1872,  No.  96;  Message  of 
January  2T,  1890,  p.  47. 

*Thus  see  Message  of  Mayor  Robert  T.  Banks,  January  21,  1868, 
p.  18,  and  Resolution  of  May  21,  1877,  No.  58. 
p 


226  THE   FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

But  even  this  policy  of  dependence  upon  private  activity 
was  not  consistently  pursued.  The  city  should  have  recog- 
nized the  monopolistic  character  of  gas-supply  as  an  in- 
dustry of  service,  and  sought  to  make  the  best  of  the  situa- 
tion by  allowing  the  original  company  the  exclusive  right 
of  supply  in  return  for  important  concessions  in  price  and 
in  franchise  payment.  Instead  of  this,  rival  company  after 
company  was  encouraged  and  given  unlimited  use  of  streets 
and  free  right  of  operation.  The  persistent  effort  of  the 
municipality  was  to  secure  a  competitive  price  for  public 
and  private  consumers  in  an  industry  which  both  practical 
experience  and  theoretical  analysis  had  shown  to  be  essen- 
tially non-competitive  and  monopolistic.  The  course  of 
events  was  in  every  case  the  same:  the  projection  of  a  "  com- 
peting" gas  company,  a  rate  war  in  which  the  city  ordi- 
narily failed,  because  of  an  existing  contract,  to  secure  even 
temporary  gain,  and  finally,  consolidation  with  its  incidents 
of  increased  capitalization  and  abandonment  of  the  dupli- 
cated plant  Within  the  period  here  examined,  occurred  no 
less  than  five  such  successive  attempts  at  competition,  of 
which  several  were  mere  speculative  raids  and  of  which 
none  remained  for  more  than  a  brief  period  in  independent 
existence. 

The  effect  of  this  short-sighted  policy  upon  the  municipal 
treasury  was  direct  and  important.  Independent  of  the 
failure  to  secure  any  return  for  the  use  of  the  city's  streets 
and  of  the  positive  loss  entailed  by  the  tearing  up  of  the 
paved  thoroughfares — the  city  was  throughout  forced  to 
pay  more  for  its  gas  than  would  otherwise  have  been  the 
case,  because  of  the  apparent  necessity  the  gas  company  was 
under  to  provide  interest  and  dividends  for  a  capitalization 

*  The  attitude  of  the  municipality  towards  these  successive  com- 
binations is  indicated  in  a  resolution  of  March  lo,  1880  (No.  30), 
wherein  the  General  Assembly  was  "  respectfully  and  most  earn- 
estly petitioned  to  investigate  the  said  combination  or  conspiracy 
of  said  gas  companies,  and  to  use  its  power  to  prevent  the  oppres- 
sion of  the  people  of  Baltimore  that  would  result  therefrom." 


THE  FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE   CITY,    1857-1897      227 

hopelessly  swollen  and  represented  in  great  part  by  dupli- 
cate, rusting  plants.  It  is  however  improbable  that  the 
price  actually  paid  by  the  city  for  its  lighting  during  this 
period  represented  a  minimum  charge  even  under  existing 
conditions.  Originally  the  city  paid  a  specific  sum  for 
each  public  light,  independent  of  the  amount  of  gas  con- 
sumed. In  1 87 1  a  contract  for  five  years  was  made  at  the 
rate  of  $2.50  per  thousand  feet.'  This  price  was  reduced, 
probably  in  1879,  to  $2.25,  and  in  1880,  to  $1.85.  In  the 
latter  year  a  five  years'  contract  was  made  at  the  rate  of 
$1.85,  with  the  result  that  during  a  considerable  part  of 
this  period  the  city  actually  paid  a  higher  rate  than  private 
consumers.^  After  a  brief  rate  war  between  rival  compa- 
nies, the  maximum  price  of  gas  was  fixed  by  legislative 
statute  in  1888  at  $1.25,*  after  which  time  no  further  con- 
tracts were  made  and  the  relation  of  the  city  to  the  gas 
company  was  precisely  that  of  a  private  consumer. 

The  service  rendered  by  the  gas  company  was  confined  to 
the  extension  of  plant  and  the  supply  of  gas.  Street  lamps 
were  erected  at  public  expense  and  the  whole  cost  of  lamp- 
lighting  devolved  upon  the  municipality.  This  latter  func- 
tion was  vested  in  1857  in  a  body  of  Superintendents  of 
Lamps  and  a  large  number  of  lamplighters,  all  of  whom 
were  appointed  by  the  Mayor.*  In  1878  general  superin- 
tendence of  street  lighting  was  entrusted  to  a  General  Su- 
perintendent of  Lamps  and  Inspector  and  Sealer  of  Gas 
Meters."  By  a  characteristic  anomaly  this  official,  although 
nominally  responsible  for  the  efficiency  of  the  department, 
possessed  no  power  of  selecting  either  the  district  superin- 

*  Ordinance  of  May  10,  1871,  No.  ^(). 

*  Mayor's  Message  of  January  i,  1884,  p.  42. 

'Mayor's  Message  of  January  i,  1888,  p.  71;  "Laws  of  Mary- 
land," 1888,  ch.  322. 

*  Ordinance  of  January  i,  1857,  No.  4,  sect.  13. 

"  Ordinance  of  October  23,  1878,  No.  100.  As  suggested  by  the 
composite  title,  the  duties  of  the  Inspector  and  Sealer  of  Gas 
Meters  (Ordinance  of  May  28,  1861,  No.  53)  were  incorporated  in 
this  new  office. 


228  THE   FINANCIAL  HISTORY   OF   BALTIMORE 

tendents  nor  the  general  body  of  lamplighters,  both  of 
whom  continued  to  be  appointed  by  the  Mayor.  In  con- 
sequence the  lamplighting  department  early  became  one  of 
the  defective  branches  of  the  city  administration,  of  which 
the  cost  was  largely  in  excess  of  the  benefit  derived,  and 
of  which  the  largest  usefulness  was  the  patronage  it  offered 
to  ward  workers. 

The  experience  of  the  city  with  electrical  illumination, 
introduced  for  public  purposes  in  1881-82,  was  in  many 
respects  the  same  as  with  gas  lighting.  Dependence  was 
throughout  put  upon  private  enterprise,  and  successive  com- 
panies were  given  the  use  of  the  city's  streets  in  the  hope  of 
securing  competitive  prices.  The  actual  results  were  either 
outright  consolidation,  or  an  amicable  division  of  territory 
and  the  fixture  of  an  arbitrary  non-competitive  price.  De- 
spite improvements  in  methods  of  electrical  lighting  and 
the  rapid  extension  of  its  use  for  municipal  purposes,  the 
contract  cost  of  lighting  underwent  slow  reduction — from 
70  cents  per  arc  light  at  the  time  of  its  introduction,  to  50 
cents  in  1887,  to  40  cents  in  1889.  In  1890  a  contract  for 
five  years  was  made  at  35  cents  per  arc  light  and  in  1894 
this  was  extended  for  five  years.  The  project  of  a  munici- 
pal electric  lighting  plant  was  suggested  from  time  to  time 
but  never  seriously  agitated.  It  was  strongly  recommended 
in  1891  by  Mayor  Robert  C.  Davidson,  who  estimated  that 
a  well-equipped  plant,  available  for  the  public  illumination 
of  the  city  would  entail  a  capital  expenditure  of  $2,000,000 
and  an  annual  outlay  of  $170,000 — thus  effecting  a  saving 
of  about  $90,000  annually.* 

A  slow  and  short-sighted  extension  of  service  into  thinly 
settled  districts  characterized  the  policy  of  the  private  light- 
ing agencies  of  Baltimore.  This  was  in  part  counteracted 
by  contract  provisions  for  the  annual  expenditure  by  the 
gas  company  of  specified  amounts  in  the  extension  of  pip- 
ing and  for  the  erection  of  lamps  at  such  points  within  cer- 

^  Mayor's  Message  of  January  26,  1891,  p.  66. 


THE    FINANCES    OF    BALTIMORE    CITY,    1857-1897       229 

tain  limits  as  might  be  designated  by  municipal  ordinance/ 
Outlying  sections  continued  to  be  lighted  by  oil  lamps,  for 
the  maintenance  of  which  annual  contracts  were  made  by 
the  city  with  private  individuals. 

Fire  Protection. 

The  unsatisfactory  condition  of  the  local  fire  department 
had  become  generally  recognized  in  1856.  Suggestions 
were  made  from  time  to  time  for  a  modification  of  the  exist- 
ing system,^  but  the  drift  of  opinion  was  toward  the  entire 
displacement  of  volunteer  service  by  a  paid  department. 
Under  Mayor  Thomas  Swann's  administration  a  joint  com- 
mission of  nine  persons,  representing  the  city  and  the  Bal- 
timore United  Fire  Department,  was  appointed  to  present 
a  plan  for  "  the  thorough  organization  of  the  Fire  Depart- 
ment of  Baltimore." ' 

A  paid  fire  department  was  established  at  the  close  of 
1858  and  placed  under  the  control  of  an  unsalaried  Board 
of  Fire  Commissioners,  consisting  of  five  persons  appointed 
by  the  Mayor  for  a  term  of  five  years,  so  arranged  that  one 
member  retired  annually.  The  number  and  the  remunera- 
tion of  the  force  were  fixed  by  municipal  ordinance,  but  the 
actual  appointments  were  made  by  the  Fire  Commission- 
ers.* The  volunteer  companies  remained  in  activity  until 
the  thorough  organization  of  the  new  department,  and  then 
having  sold  the  best  part  of  their  equipment  to  the  city, 
gradually  disbanded.     The  reorganization  was   completed 

^Thus  see  Ordinances  of  November  2,  1876,  No.  165;  March  3, 
1880,  No.  is;  March  22,  1882,  No.  30. 

*  Thus  see  Mayor's  Message  of  January,  1856,  pp.  20-21. 

*  Resolution  of  May  31,  1858,  No.  82. 

*  Ordinance  of  December  10,  1858,  No.  5.  Forty  thousand  dol- 
lars were  appropriated  for  the  equipment  of  the  department,  but 
the  actual  payments  were  made  in  the  form  of  long  time  city  notes. 
An  interesting  survival  of  the  volunteer  system  was  contained  in 
the  provision  that  the  Fire  Commissioners  might  allow  persons  to 
become  "  honorary  members  "  of  the  department  upon  the  payment 
of  an  annual  sum  of  five  dollars. 


230  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF    BALTIMORE 

by  the  introduction  of  a  police  and  fire  alarm  telegraph, 
and  the  results  of  the  new  system  were  promptly  seen  in 
an  extraordinary  reduction  in  the  number  of  fires  and 
alarms  of  fire  from  428  in  1858  to  267  in  1859/ 

The  size  and  equipment  of  the  fire  department  increased 
steadily  with  the  growth  of  the  city  in  the  thirty  years  suc- 
ceeding the  substitution  of  the  volunteer  for  the  paid  sys- 
tem,. Certain  changes  were  also  made  in  the  administra- 
tion of  the  department.  In  1868  the  term  of  office  of  the 
Fire  Commissioners  was  reduced  to  four  years/  and  in  1877 
they  were  given  full  control  of  the  police  and  fire  alarm 
telegraph,.*  In  1878  an  additional  member  was  added  to 
the  Board,  making  six  in  all,*  and  in  1881  the  term  of  office 
was  changed  back  again  to  six  years."  In  1883,  in  the  hope 
of  removing  the  department  from  the  influence  of  local  poli- 
tics, the  existing  Board  of  Fire  Commissioners  was  replaced 
by  a  Fire  Marshal,  biennially  appointed  by  the  Mayor.' 
None  of  the  results  sought  for  were  attained,^  and  in  1884 
the  office  of  Fire  Marshal  was  in  turn  abolished,  and  upon 
the  recommendation  of  Mayor  Ferdinand  C.  Latrobe  the 
Boston  system  of  a  paid  board  of  three  Fire  Commission- 
ers, holding  office  for  three  years  and  retiring  in  succession, 
was  substituted  therefor.'  The  appointment  and  control  of 
all  employees  of  the  department  were  entrusted  to  this  board, 
and  provision  was  made  that  all  supphes  must  be  purchased 
after  advertisement  and  award  to  the  lowest  bidder.  In 
1888  the  Mayor  was  made  a  fourth  member  of  the  board, 
ex-oMcio'  and  in  1892  the  term  of  office  was  reduced  to  two 

*  Mayor's  Message  of  January  16,  i860,  pp.  12-13;  Resolutions  of 
July  6,  1858,  No.  123,  and  December  7,  1858,  No.  11;  Ordinance  of 
June  24,  1859,  No.  94. 

^  Ordinance  of  February  21,  1868,  No.  7. 
'  Ordinance  of  March  29,  1877,  No.  18. 

*  Ordinance  of  October  4,  1878,  No.  87. 

"  Ordinance  of  February  24,  1881,  No.  16. 

'  Ordinance  of  February  19,  1883,  No.  i.  ' 

'  Mayor's  Message  of  January  i,  1884,  p.  65. 

'  Ordinance  of  March  24,  1884,  No.  21. 

°  Ordinance  of  April  14,  1888,  No.  28. 


THE    FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    1857-1897       23I 

years.*  In  1893  the  last  vestige  of  the  volunteer  system 
was  swept  away  by  the  replacement  of  "  call  men  "  by  full 
paid  employees." 

Water  Supply. 

After  the  municipal  purchase  of  the  existing  water-works 
in  1854,  early  steps  were  taken  to  extend  the  plant  and  to 
furnish  all  sections  of  the  city  with  an  abundant  supply  of 
wholesome  water.  The  work  of  extension  and  the  general 
administration  of  the  department  were  vested  in  1857  in  a 
reorganized  Water  Board,  composed  of  six  members,  ap- 
pointed biennially  by  the  Mayor  who  was  also  ex-oiUcio  a 
member  of  the  new  Board.'  Under  the  direction  of  this 
body,  the  introduction  of  water  from  Jones'  Falls  was  ac- 
complished between  1858  and  1862.  The  aggregate  cost  of 
constructing  the  new  water-works  was  defrayed  from  out 
the  proceeds  of  special  funded  loans  hereinafter  described.* 
The  Jones'  Falls  supply  was  completed  by  the  construction 
of  two  additional  reservoirs — Druid  Lake  in  1863-65  and 
the  High  Service  Reservoir  in  1871-74.  Like  the  works 
proper,  these  additions  were  built  from  out  the  proceeds  of 
special  funded  loans. 

After  several  years  of  agitation  during  which  the  inade- 
quacy of  the  existing  water-supply  for  the  wants  of  the 
growing  city  became  increasingly  apparent,  the  construc- 
tion of  a  metropolitan  system  by  the  introduction  of  water 
from  the  Gunpowder  River  was  definitely  undertaken  by 
the  municipality  in  1874  through  the  agency  of  the  Water 
Board.  A  municipal  loan  of  $4,000,000  was  authorized  for 
this  purpose,  and  after  seven  years  of  practically  continuous 
labor  the  new  system  was  completed  in  October,  1881.  It 
was  further  extended  by  the  construction  of  a  storage  reser- 
voir (Lake  Clifton)  from  out  the  proceeds  of  additional 

*  Baltimore  City  Code,  Art.  XX,  sect,  i;  apparently  upon  the 
authority  of  the  codifier. 

■  Ordinance  of  February  4,  1893,  No.  8. 
'  Ordinance  of  April  14,  1857,  No.  28. 

*  See  below,  p.  306. 


232  THE   FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

loans  to  the  amount  of  $1,500,000,  authorized  in  1883-86. 
Finally  the  extension  of  service  into  the  recently  annexed 
portions  of  the  city  was  proposed  in  1894,  and  the  "  Four 
Million  Loan "  authorized  an  expenditure  of  $2,000,000 
for  that  purpose/  It  will  thus  be  seen  that  the  cost  of  con- 
structing and  extending  the  local  water-works  was  defrayed 
from  out  the  proceeds  of  funded  loans,  and  aggregated  more 
than  $12,500,000.  Of  this  amount  more  than  $4,500,000 
was  authorized  prior  to  1868;  more  than  $5,000,000  between 
1868  and  1888,  and  the  remaining  $3,000,000  after  1888, 
Independent  of  the  original  cost  of  construction  and  ex- 
tension, municipal  ownership  and  operation  of  the  water- 
works entailed  an  annual  expenditure  for  the  payment  of 
interest  upon  the  funded  water  debt,  and  for  actual  main- 
tenance and  operation,  including  the  extension  of  mains 
within  the  city.  From  the  very  purchase  of  the  original 
water-works  these  recurring  expenditures  were  defrayed 
wholly  or  in  part  from  out  the  rental  receipts  of  the  plant, 
and  the  Water  Board  was  vested  with  virtual  independence 
in  fiscal  matters.* 

Health. 

The  Board  of  Health  was  reorganized  in  1861  by  con- 
solidating the  offices  of  Commissioner  of  Health  and  of 
City  Physician.'  The  Assistant  Commissioner  of  Health 
and  the  Physician  to  the  Marine  Hospital  formed  the  addi- 
tional members  of  the  Board — the  latter  official  by  usage 
rather  than  by  formal  authorization.  In  1886  the  title  of 
the  Commissioner  of  Health  was  changed  to  "  Commis- 
sioner of  Health  and  Register  of  Vital  Statistics,"*  and  in 
1888  the  Mayor  was  made  a  third  member  of  the  Board, 
ex-oMcio^ 

^  See  below,  p.  321. 

'  Occasional  special  appropriations  were  made  by  the  City  Coun- 
cil; but  for  a  discussion  of  the  financial  policy  of  the  Water  Depart- 
ment, see  below,  p.  290. 

*  Ordinance  of  February  28,  1861,  No.  5. 

*  Ordinance  of  June  4,  1886,  No.  83. 

*  Ordinance  of  April  14,  1888,  No.  29. 


THE    FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    1857-1897       233 

The  activities  of  the  department  underwent  Httle  change^ 
The  functions  of  street-cleaning  and  garbage  removal  re- 
mained under  the  special  charge  of  the  Assistant  Commis- 
sioner of  Health,  until  vested  in  1882  in  an  independent  de- 
partment.^ The  Marine  Hospital  became  in  1881  the 
"  Quarantine  Hospital,"  and  continued  to  serve  both  as  a 
quarantine  station  and  as  an  emergency  hospital  for  the  re- 
ception of  infectious  diseases.  In  1890  a  City  Morgue  was 
established  and  placed  under  the  control  of  the  Board  of 
Health.^" 

Under  the  stress  of  recurring  fever  and  epidemic,  actual 
or  threatened,  the  powers  and  resources  of  the  Board  of 
Health  were  greatly  enlarged.'  In  the  main,  however,  the 
functions  of  the  health  department  in  Baltimore  as  in  the 
ordinary  American  city  were  restricted  to  merely  remedial 
measures — the  abatement  of  nuisances,  the  isolation  of  con- 
tagious disease,  the  enforcement  of  quarantine.  The  de- 
partment was  never  vested  with  adequate  power  for  the 
general  sanitary  control  and  improvement  of  the  city.  Suc- 
cessive health  boards  called  attention  in  urgent  terms  to 
sanitary  reforms  made  necessary  by  the  growth  of  the  city, 
such  as  the  erection  of  a  suitable  hospital  for  infectious  dis- 
eases or  the  establishment  of  a  municipal  abattoir,  but  the 
municipality  was  slow  to  extend  the  activities  of  the  de- 
partment by  placing  large  resources  at  its  disposal.*  It  is 
evidence  of  remarkable  natural  conditions  rather  than  of 
efficient  sanitation,  that — ^with  the  existing  facts  of  surface 
drainage,  exposed  water-supply,  inadequate  provision  for 
infectious  disease — the  health  of  the  city  should  have  re- 
mained as  favorable  as  was  actually  the  case. 

Markets. 
At  the  outset  of  the  period  here  considered,  permanent 
market   houses   had   been   erected   on   all   the    designated 

^  See  above,  p.  220.  *  Ordinance  of  July  g,  1890,  No.  156. 

'  Resolution  of  January  27,  1873,  No.  68;  Mayor's  Message  of 
January  23,  1883. 

*Thus  see  Report  of  Board  of  Health,  October  31,  1875;  few  of 
the  evils  therein  pointed  out  have  since  been  remedied. 


234  THE   FINANCIAL    HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

market  places  of  the  city,.  The  cost  of  maintenance,  in- 
cluding expenditures  for  repairs  and  the  salaries  of  the 
market  clerks,  was  defrayed  by  annual  appropriations  from 
out  the  municipal  treasury,  into  which  were  paid  all  market 
dues  and  rentals/  These  ordinary  expenditures  remained 
practically  constant  in  amount.  From  time  to  time  it  be- 
came necessary  to  replace  or  extend  existing  market 
houses,  and  special  appropriations  were  made  for  this  pur- 
pose from  out  current  income  and  expended  under  the  di- 
rection of  the  Inspector  of  Buildings.'' 

Wharves  and  Harbor. 

General  charge  of  the  wharves  and  harbor  of  the  city  re- 
mained for  some  years  vested  in  the  Port  Warden.  In 
1 86 1  the  office  of  Port  Warden  was  consolidated  with  that 
of  City  Commissioner,  as  already  noted,'  but  two  years 
later  it  was  again  differentiated.*  In  the  succeeding  de- 
cade the  Port  Warden's  department  or  "  City  Yard  "  was  an 
ofifensive  plague  spot  in  the  municipal  administration.  At 
its  best,  it  was  an  extravagant  and  wasteful  branch  of  mu- 
nicipal service;  under  ordinary  circumstances, it  was  a  haven 
of  refuge  for  worn-out  political  hacks  and  ward-heelers.  In 
1876,  largely  through  efforts  of  Mayor  F.  C.  Latrobe,  the 
office  of  Port  Warden  was  entirely  abolished  and  its  duties 
transferred  to  an  unpaid  Harbor  Board  composed  of  the 
Mayor  and  six  commissioners  appointed  by  the  Mayor  for 
terms  of  four  years,  arranged  so  that  half  of  the  body  re- 

^  See  below,  p.  296. 

^  The  fixed  character  and  insignificant  amount  of  market  expendi- 
tures are  indicated  in  the  following  table: 

Repair  and  Construction. 
$  8,406.13 

3,297.16 
16,478.96 


Year. 

Salaries. 

1856 

$5,614.94 

1866 

5,928.67 

1876 

4,670.81 

1886 

5,238.51 

1896 

4,725.07 

*  See  above, 

p.  209. 

*  Ordinance  of  February 

17,  1863,  No.  8. 

THE    FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    1857-1897       235 

tired  biennially,*  In  1887  the  tenure  of  the  members  of  the 
Harbor  Board  was  reduced  with  that  of  other  city  officers 
to  two  years.'' 

The  functions  of  the  Harbor  Board,  from  the  time  of  its 
creation,  were  threefold  in  character:  (i)  supervision  and 
improvement  of  the  harbor,  (2)  operation  and  maintenance 
of  ice-boats,  (3)  repair  of  docks  and  wharves."  Specific  ap- 
propriations were  made  annually  by  the  City  Council  for 
each  of  these  purposes,  and  unused  balances  remained  in 
the  city  treasury. 

(i)  The  most  important  activity  of  the  Harbor  Board  was 
the  maintenance  by  systematic  dredging  of  specified  depths 
of  water  in  the  various  sections  of  the  harbor,  constantly 
threatened  by  tidewater  deposits  and  drainage  sediment. 
The  work  was  done  by  specific  contracts  awarded  to  the 
lowest  competent  bidder,*  Immediate  superintendence  was 
vested  in  a  skilled  engineer,  whose  continuous  tenure  was 
in  considerable  measure  responsible  for  the  excellent  results 
accomplished. 

The  widening  and  deepening  of  the  ship-channel  of  the 
city,  undertaken  by  the  commission  of  1852,"  languished 
with  the  abolition  of  the  distinct  office  of  Port  Warden  in 

1 86 1  and  the  expenditure  of  the  original  appropriation.     In 

1862  provision  was  made  for  the  biennial  appointment  of 
six  commissioners,  serving  without  pay  and,  with  the 
Mayor,  constituting  a  board  of  commissioners  "  for  deep- 
ening and  improving  the  channel  of  Chesapeake  Bay  and 
the  Patapsco  River,  below  Fort  McHenry."     This  body  was 

^  Ordinance  of  March  24,  1876,  No.  28. 

"  Ordinance  of  February  25,  1887,  No.  4. 

'  An  important  additional  service  of  the  Harbor  Board,  aided  by 
the  federal  government,  was  the  establishment  of  the  Port  Wardens 
Line. 

* "  The  average  cost  of  dredging,  including  department  expenses, 
under  the  old  system  was  from  37  to  38  cents  per  cubic  yard. 
Under  the  present  system  of  a  Harbor  Board,  the  average  cost, 
including  departmental  expenses,  is  from  iij^  to  12  cents  per  cubic 
yard  "  (Mayor's  Message  of  January  8,  1877,  p.  84). 

*  See  above,  p.  125. 


236  THE   FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF    BALTIMORE 

authorized  to  receive  and  disburse  the  twenty  thousand  dol- 
lars annually  appropriated  by  the  state  from  out  the  pro- 
ceeds of  auction  duties,  but  no  distinct  municipal  funds 
were  made  available.^  During  the  next  decade  the  work  of 
improvement  was  prosecuted  spasmodically  as  federal  ap- 
propriations supplemented  this  inadequate  fund.  With  a 
view  to  greater  activity  the  powers  of  the  commission  were 
in  1872  transferred  to  the  "  Patapsco  River  Improvement 
Board,"  composed  of  three  designated  citizens,  serving 
without  pay,  and  the  sum  of  $200,000  to  be  raised  by  tem- 
porary loans  was  appropriated  for  this  purpose/  A  second 
appropriation  of  the  same  amount  was  made  in  1873,'  and 
larger  funds  were  at  the  same  time  made  available  by  the 
federal  government.  In  1876  the  newly  created  Harbor 
Board  absorbed  the  duties  of  the  Patapsco  River  Improve- 
ment Board.  Thereafter  the  maintenance  and  improve- 
ment of  the  ship-channel  were  carried  on  under  federal  di- 
rection and,  in  the  main,  by  means  of  federal  appropria- 
tions; while  the  Harbor  Board  concentrated  its  efforts  upon 
providing  equal  faciUties  within  the  harbor  proper. 

(2)  The  preservation  of  a  navigable  approach  to  the  city 
during  the  winter  season  was  vested  in  1867  by  act  of  the 
General  Assembly  in  a  "  Harbor  and  River  Relief  Board  '^ 
composed  of  the  President  of  the  Board  of  Trade,  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  Corn  and  Flour  Exchange  and  a  member  chosen 
by  the  presidents  of  the  several  marine  insurance  companies 
of  the  city.*  Provision  was  made  for  an  outright  appropria- 
tion of  $150,000  to  be  paid  in  equal  parts  by  the  city  and  the 
state  for  the  construction  of  an  ice-boat,  and  for  an  annual 
appropriation  of  $10,000  by  the  city  thereafter  for  its  main- 
tenance. Similar  provision  for  the  joint  construction  and 
operation  of  a  new  ice-boat  was  made  in   1888,  and  the 

^  Ordinance  of  August  9,  1862,  No.  53. 

*  Ordinance  of  May  30,  1872,  No.  66. 

•  Ordinance  of  March  25,  1873,  No.  13. 

*"Laws   of   Maryland,"    1867,    ch.   248;    Ordinance   of   June    10, 
1867,  No.  40. 


THE   FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    1857-1897       237 

Mayor  was  substituted  for  the  representative  of  the  insur- 
ance companies  in  the  Harbor  and  Relief  Board/  In  1877 
the  newly  organized  Harbor  Board  was  authorized  to  con- 
struct and  operate  an  independent  ice-boat  for  the  protec- 
tion of  local  commerce/  The  exercise  of  the  same  func- 
tion by  two  practically  distinct  bodies  resulted  in  inefficient 
service  and  unnecessary  friction.  Some  improvement  was 
effected  by  the  appointment  of  the  Mayor  as  a  member  of 
the  Harbor  and  River  Relief  Board  in  1888;  but  the  evil 
was  not  entirely  corrected  until  1894  when  the  ice-boat  op- 
erated by  the  Harbor  and  River  Relief  Board  was  put  under 
the  control  of  the  municipal  Harbor  Board." 

(3)  The  early  practice  of  devoting  the  revenues  collected 
from  each  wharf  to  its  specific  improvement  fell  into  disuse 
and  an  annual  appropriation  of  small  amount  was  made 
from  out  the  municipal  treasury  for  the  repair  and  cleaning 
of  wharves. 

Courts. 

The  incorporation  of  the  city  courts  with  the  judicial 
system  of  the  state,  effected  by  the  Maryland  constitution 
of  1 85 1,  established  the  essential  features  of  the  local  judi- 
ciary. The  constitution  of  1864  defined  Baltimore,  for  ju- 
dicial purposes,  as  the  thirteenth  judicial  circuit  of  Mary- 
land, with  four  courts,  styled  the  Superior  Court  of  Balti- 
more City,  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas,  the  Circuit  Court 
and  the  Criminal  Court.*  The  term  of  the  judges  was  fixed 
at  fifteen  years  and  that  of  the  clerks  at  six  years;  the  or- 
ganization of  the  probate  court  was  unchanged.  Provision 
was  made  for  the  appointment  of  local  constables  by  the 
corporation  instead  of  by  the  state,  and  for  the  election  by 
popular  vote  of  a  state's  attorney  for  Baltimore  City,  with 

' "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1888,  ch.  259. 

*  Ordinance  of  May  3,  1877,  No.  33. 

*  See  "  Report  of  Harbor  Board,"  January,  1895. 

*  The  legislature  was  empowered  to  establish  another  court  if  it 
saw  fit. 


238  THE   FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

power  to  appoint  a  deputy  attorney,  both  of  whom  were 
paid  by  fees/ 

The  modern  organization  of  the  local  judiciary  was  de- 
termined by  the  state  constitution  of  1867.  Baltimore  was 
therein  denominated  the  eighth  judicial  district  of  Maryland, 
with  six  courts  (the  Supreme  Bench,  the  Superior  Court, 
the  Court  of  Common  Pleas,  the  Baltimore  City  Court,  the 
Circuit  Court  and  the  Criminal  Court),  presided  over  by 
one  chief  judge  and  four  associate  judges,  together  consti- 
tuting the  Supreme  Bench  of  Baltimore  City.  The  judges 
were  elected  by  popular  vote  for  a  term  of  fifteen  years  and 
received  an  annual  salary  of  $3500  from  the  state,  with  an 
additional  allowance  of  $500  at  the  option  and  expense  of 
the  city.  A  clerk  was  elected  for  each  court  at  an  annual 
salary  of  $3500  for  a  term  of  six  years,  paid  in  so  far  as  pos- 
sible from  out  the  fees  of  his  office.  Three  judges  of  the 
Orphan's  Court  were  elected  every  fourth  year  and  received 
per  diem  compensation.  Justices  of  the  peace  were  ap- 
pointed biennially  by  the  governor,  and  constables  by  the 
corporation.  A  city  sheriff  was  elected  by  popular  vote  every 
second  year,  and  a  state's  attorney  in  Baltimore,  every 
fourth  year — the  latter  appointing  a  deputy  attorney  as  be- 
fore. The  Supreme  Bench  appointed  the  necessary  judi- 
cial officers  (criers  and  bailiffs),  whose  compensation  was 
fixed  by  the  General  Assembly.''  In  1888  a  second  civil 
court,  designated  as  Circuit  Court  No.  2,  was  established, 
and  provision  was  made  for  the  election  of  an  additional 
judge  and  clerk  in  the  same  manner  and  receiving  the  same 
compensation  as  other  members  of  the  city  bench.' 

The  entire  cost  of  the  local  judiciary,  with  the  exception 
of  the  salaries  of  judges  and  clerks,  was  imposed  upon  the 
city  and  defrayed  by  annual  appropriations  from  out  the 
city  treasury.     On  the  other  hand,  all  judicial  receipts  and 

^  Constitution  of  1864,  Art.  IV. 
'  Constitution  of  1867,  Art.  IV. 
»  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1888,  ch.  194. 


THE   FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    1857-1897       239 

excess  of  fees,  reverted  to  the  state  treasury,  despite  re- 
peated protest  as  to  the  injustice  of  such  procedure/ 

Schools. 

The  administration  of  the  pubhc  school  system  remained 
vested  in  the  Board  of  Commissioners  of  PubHc  Schools, 
consisting  of  one  person  from  each  of  the  twenty  wards  of 
the  city.  In  1876  the  term  of  ofhce  of  the  Commissioners 
was  extended  from  one  to  four  years,  so  arranged  that  one- 
fourth  of  the  board  retired  annually."  With  the  addition 
of  two  suburban  wards  by  the  incorporation  of  the  "  An- 
nex "  in  1888,  the  number  of  Commissioners  was  increased 
to  twenty-two.  The  members  of  the  school  board  were 
nominally  elected  by  the  two  branches  of  the  city  council 
in  joint  convention.  At  an  early  period,  however,  council- 
manic  courtesy  permitted  the  practical  appointment  of 
Commissioners  by  the  representatives  of  the  ward  within 
which  the  vacancy  occurred.  The  actual  supervision  of 
instruction  was  in  the  hands  of  a  Superintendent  of  Public 
Instruction,  aided  after  1872  by  an  Assistant  Superintendent 
who,  together  with  all  teachers  and  persons  employed  in 
connection  with  the  schools  of  the  city,  were  appointed  by 
the  school  board. 

The  public  school  system  developed  in  scope  and  in  pro- 
portions with  the  extension  of  the  city  and  the  growth  of 
population,*  Separate  instruction  was  provided  for  males 
and  females  in  primary,  grammar  and  high  schools.  Pro- 
vision was  made  for  separate  schools  for  colored  children  in 

*Thus  see  Comptroller's  Report  of  January  i,  1889;  also  Resolu- 
tion of  October  16,  1875,  No.  486. 

'  Ordinance  of  October  30,  1876,  No.  164. 

*This  is  shown  in  the  following  tabular  statement: 

Year.  Schools.  Teachers.  Pupils. 

1856  77  253  11,936 

1866  88  4H  '        17,967 

1876  119  731  31,404 

1886  136  969  41,256 

1896  173  1,673  76,192 


240  THE   FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF    BALTIMORE 

1867  and  for  the  application  to  such  schools  of  the  pro- 
ceeds of  school  taxes  levied  upon  colored  persons.  It  was 
however  found  impracticable  to  distinguish  this  revenue  and 
the  colored  schools  were  thereafter  supported  as  an  integral 
part  of  the  educational  system  of  the  city/ 

In  1884  the  fee  of  one  dollar  per  quarter  for  the  use 
of  school  books,  from  the  payment  of  which  the  children  of 
parents  in  moderate  circumstances  had  already  been  exempt, 
was  abolished  and  school  attendance  was  made  absolutely 
free  to  residents  of  Baltimore/ 

Whatever  fiscal  independence  the  school  board  may  have 
enjoyed  prior  to  1856  was  gradually  lost.  During  the 
greater  part  of  the  period  here  considered,  the  proceeds  of 
municipal  taxation  for  school  purposes,  the  city's  distribu- 
tive share  of  the  state  school  tax,  tuition  fees  and  miscella- 
neous receipts  were  paid  to  the  city  register  and  consti- 
tuted a  municipal  "  school  fund."  But  this  fund  was 
neither  segregated  nor  placed  under  the  control  of  the 
school  board,  and  the  items  constituting  it  are  most  conve- 
niently regarded  as  ordinary  municipal  revenues  and  dis- 
cussed in  their  proper  connection.  Estimates  of  anticipated 
expenditure"  were  submitted  annually  by  the  school  board, 
and  embodied  with  more  or  less  change  in  the  municipal 
budget.  Specific  appropriations  were  made  by  the  City 
Council,  and  the  drafts  of  the  school  board  were  honored 
by  the  City  Register  only  within  these  limits.  This  proce- 
dure was  apparently  modified  in  1883  in  the  case  of  funds 
from  intestacies,  which,  although  nominally  appropriated 
for  the  sole  benefit  of  the  pubHc  schools,  had  theretofore 
been  paid  into  the  city  treasury  and  treated  as  a  mere  addi- 
tion to  the  illusory  "  school  fund."  Such  revenues  were 
thereafter  constituted  a  separate  and  distinct  fund,  held  sub- 
ject to  the  order  of  the  school  board. 

*  Ordinances  of  July  10,  1867,  No.  45;  May  5,  1868,  No.  36;  Report 
of  Board  of  School  Commissioners,  January  i,  1869. 

*  Ordinance    No.    141    of    1884;    passed    over   the    Mayor's    veto. 
Tuition  fees  were  retained  for  the  children  of  non-residents. 


THE    FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE   CITY,    1857-1897       24I 

The  maintenance  of  the  pubUc  school  system,  including 
the  erection  and  equipment  of  school  buildings,  was 
throughout  one  of  the  largest  items  of  municipal  expendi- 
ture. Subject  to  the  indirect  credit  of  the  other  sources 
contributing  to  the  "  school  fund,"  the  entire  cost  of  the 
schools  was  an  immediate  charge  upon  the  municipal  treas- 
ury. With  increasing  expenditure  in  other  departments  of 
municipal  service  and  an  uninterrupted  rise  in  the  rate  of 
direct  taxation,  it  was  found  impossible  to  provide  the  nec- 
essary number  of  additional  school  buildings  from  out  of 
ordinary  municipal  revenues.  Each  of  the  composite  loans 
of  1888  and  of  1892  contained  an  appropriation  of  $400,- 
000  for  the  provision  of  additional  school-houses.  But  even 
these  large  sums  were  entirely  inadequate,  and  one  of  the 
most  urgent  occasions  for  large  municipal  expenditure  in 
the  closing  years  of  the  period  here  considered  was  that  en- 
tailed by  the  insufficient  number  and  defective  character  of 
the  public  school  buildings.^ 

Charities  and  Corrections. 

Municipal  expenditure  for  the  support  of  dependent  and 
delinquent  classes  developed  along  the  lines  indicated  before 
1856.  The  joint  interest  of  city  and  county  in  fhe  alms- 
house and  the  jail  was  dissolved  and  each  institution  passed 
under  municipal  control.  No  other  charitable  or  corrective 
institution  was  established  and  maintained  by  the  city;  but 
increasing  use  was  made  of  private  agencies,  to  which  an- 
nual municipal  appropriations  were  made. 

The  dissolution  of  the  joint  interest  of  the  city  and  county 
in  the  almshouse,  although  authorized  several  years  be- 
fore, was  not  consummated  until  1858,  when  the  property 
was  offered  at  public  sale  and  purchased  by  the  county. 

^  For  painful  but  graphic  evidence  of  this,  see  "  Report  on  the 
Sanitary  Condition  of  the  Primary  Schools  of  Baltimore  "  (1898), 
made  by  Professor  S.  Homer  Woodbridge  of  the  Massachusetts 
Institute  of  Technology  of  Boston,  by  request  of  the  Arundell 
Good  Government  Club. 
Q 


242  THE   FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

Pending  the  erection  of  a  new  building  the  city  leased  the 
old  structure,  but  continued  to  share  the  cost  of  mainte- 
nance with  the  county.  In  1861  the  city  assumed  direct 
control,  agreeing  to  maintain  paupers  belonging  to  the 
county  at  a  per  capita  charge/  The  new  almshouse  or  Bay 
View  Asylum  was  erected  in  1862-66  by  a  special  commis- 
sion ("  The  Building  Committee  of  the  Baltimore  City 
Almshouse  ")  of  four  persons  appointed  by  the  Mayor,  who 
served  as  president,  ex  officio.  Funds  were  provided  by  the 
sale  of  the  city's  share  in  the  old  almshouse  property  and 
by  three  successive  issues  of  municipal  stock.'  The  build- 
ing was  subsequently  enlarged  as  required,  and  in  1880 
provision  was  made  for  the  erection  of  an  additional  struc- 
ture.* From  1858  until  1862,  the  management  of  the  alms- 
house appears  to  have  remained  in  the  hands  of  the  city 
members  of  the  joint  board.  In  the  latter  year  control  was 
vested  in  an  incorporated  board  of  five  Trustees  of  the  Poor 
of  Baltimore  City,  annually  appointed  in  the  manner  of 
other  city  officers.*  Six  years  later  the  full  title  of  the  alms- 
house was  transferred  to  the  Mayor  and  City  Council  with- 
out any  change  however  in  the  administrative  duties  of  the 
Trustees.'*  In  1886  the  number  of  Trustees  was  increased 
from  five  to  seven,  and  in  1892  the  term  of  appointment  was 
extended  to  two  years.'  Sick  and  indigent  persons  were  ad- 
mitted to  the  almshouse  by  the  Trustees  of  the  Poor,  or 
their  representatives,  and  by  "  managers  of  the  poor,"  one 
of  whom  was  annually  appointed  by  the  Mayor  in  each 
ward  of  the  city.  Vagrants  and  tramps  were  committed  to 
the  institution  by  police  magistrates  and  by  the  Criminal 
Court. 
A  new  city  jail  was  constructed  in  1856-60  by  a  specially 

^"Baltimore  City  Code,"   1879,  p.  74,  note;  cf.  "Report  of  the 
Trustees  for  the  Poor,"  December  31,  1861. 

*  See  below,  p.  309. 

*  Ordinance  of  May  5,  1880.  No.  91. 

* "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1861,  ch.  279. 

"  Ibid.,  1868,  ch.  I. 

'  Baltimore  City  Code,  1892,  Art.  II,  sect.  2. 


THE    FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    1857-1897       243 

appointed  building  committee.  Funds  were  provided  by 
direct  appropriations  and  by  funded  loans/  After  the  sev- 
erance of  the  county's  interest  in  1853,  the  affairs  of  the 
institution  appear  to  have  been  directed  by  the  four  city 
members  of  the  joint  board  established  in  1832.  In  1861 
provision  was  made  for  the  annual  appointment  of  a  board 
of  five  persons,  designated  "  The  Visitors  of  the  Jail  of 
Baltimore  City  "  and  this  body  remained  thereafter  in  con- 
trol of  the  institution,  with  full  power  of  appointing  its 
officers/  In  1881  the  number  of  Visitors  was  increased  to 
six,  together  with  the  Mayor  who  served  ex  oMcio;  the  term 
of  office  was  increased  to  six  years,  with  two  members  re- 
tiring biennially.*  Two  years  later  the  tenure  was  reduced 
to  three  years  with  one  member  retiring  annually.* 

The  cost  of  maintaining  the  almshouse  and  the  jail  was 
defrayed  by  annual  appropriations  from  out  the  city  treas- 
ury. Nominally  the  proceeds  of  the  "  poor  levy  "  and  of 
a  portion  of  the  "  certain  expenses  levy  "  of  the  general 
property  tax  were  designed  for  this  purpose.  But  the  claim 
of  the  Trustees  of  the  Poor  to  the  aggregate  yield  of  the 
"  poor  levy,"  although  asserted  at  the  beginning  of  the 
period,  was  at  no  time  recognized.  The  rate  of  the  levy 
was  ordinarily  adjusted  to  the  expenditure  anticipated;  but 
the  actual  proceeds  were  never  segregated,  and  if  they  ex- 
ceeded the  appropriation  made  by  the  City  Council,  the  sur- 
plus remained  in  the  general  treasury  instead  of  being 
credited  to  any  special  account. 

The  characteristic  feature  of  local  expenditure  for  chari- 
ties and  corrections  was  the  system  of  municipal  subsidies  to 
private  institutions.  Prior  to  the  Civil  War  small  and  ir- 
regular appropriations  had  been  made  to  private  institu- 
tions, for  the  most  part  to  medical  dispensaries.  In  1864, 
probably  as  a  result  of  the  greater  drain  upon  their  ordi- 

^  See  below,  p.  309. 
■  Ordinance  of  May  16,  1861,  No.  45. 
'  Ordinance  of  February  8,  1881,  No.  4. 
*  Ordinance  of  March  5,  1883,  No.  10. 


244  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF    BALTIMORE 

nary  resources  resulting  from  prolonged  military  opera- 
tions, a  number  of  private  relief  agencies  made  successful 
application  for  municipal  aid.  This  action  was  promptly 
accepted  as  a  precedent,  and  within  a  decade  indirect  con- 
tributions to  the  support  of  dependent  and  defective  classes 
had  become  the  established  municipal  policy/ 

The  experience  of  Baltimore  in  granting  public  subsidies 
to  private  charities  confirms  in  almost  every  detail  the 
results  attained  in  other  American  cities.  The  cost  to  the 
city  was  probably  less  than  municipal  institutions  would 
have  involved,  but  the  benefits  derived  were  certainly  less 
satisfactory.  Municipal  subsidies  stimulated  the  organiza- 
tion of  unnecessary  agencies  and  resulted  in  the  wasteful 
duplication  of  institutions.  The  development  of  the  sys- 
tem was,  moreover,  entirely  unaccompanied  by  any  of 
the  checks  upon  which  its  successful  working  depends. 
No  provision  was  made  for  the  thorough  inspection  of 
subsidized  institutions  or  for  the  systematic  auditing  of 
their  accounts.  The  municipality  had  no  voice  in  con- 
trolling the  affairs  of  the  institutions,  including  the  terms 
of  admission  and  discharge.  Finally,  municipal  appropria- 
tions were  ordinarily  made  in  bulk  and  not  on  "  the  prin- 
ciple of  specific  payment  for  specific  work."  * 

^  The  growth  in  the  number  of  institutions  aided  and  the  in- 
crease in  the  aggregate  municipal  appropriation  are  indicated  by 
the  following  statement  derived  from  the  Registers'  estimates  of 
probable  expenditures  for  the  ensuing  years: 

Year.  Number  of  Institutions.         Estimated  Appropriations. 

1870  7  $22,000 

1880  IS  100,000 

1890  32  183,990 

1896  51  277,27s 

'  Warner,  "  American  Charities,"  ch.  XVII.  Professor  Warner 
was  for  several  years  secretary  of  the  Charity  Organization  Society 
of  Baltimore,  and  it  is  no  hazardous  conjecture  to  suppose  that  his 
admirable  review  of  the  system  of  public  subsidies  to  private 
charities  stands  in  some  definite  relation  to  conditions  in  Baltimore. 
Certainly  the  concluding  sentence  of  Professor  Warner's  chapter 
may  be  cited  as  the  practical  lesson  to  be  drawn  from  the  experi- 
ence of  this  city:  "  As  a  transition  policy  for  growing  communities. 


the  finances  of  baltimore  city,  1857-1897     245 

Parks  and  Squares." 

A  series  of  small  unimproved  public  squares  constituted 
the  "  lungs  "  of  Baltimore  in  1856.  The  present  system  of 
municipal  parks  originated  in  a  proposition  to  establish  a 
boulevard  around  the  city,  first  entertained  by  the  Mayor 
and  City  Council  in  185 1.  A  commission  of  represen- 
tative citizens  was  appointed  in  that  year  to  inquire  into  the 
feasibility  of  the  plan  and  its  probable  cost.  After  careful 
surveys  the  commission  reported  that  the  plan  was  entirely 
practicable,  but  estimated  its  cost  at  $641,300,  exclusive  of 
right  of  way;  subsequent  modifications  of  route  reduced  this 
estimate  nearly  fifty  per  cent.  The  boulevard,  as  planned, 
extended  in  part  beyond  the  city  limits,  and  would  have 
required  an  act  of  the  legislature  for  the  annexation  of  the 
section  of  Baltimore  County  included.  This  extension  of 
the  city  confines  was  strongly  opposed  by  residents  of  the 
county,  and  there  appeared  to  be  little  likelihood  of  secur- 
ing the  requisite  legislation  from  the  General  Assembly. 
The  finances  of  the  city  were,  moreover,  in  no  condition  to 
warrant  the  large  expenditure  required,  and  after  some 
further  discussion  the  entire  boulevard  project  was  dropped. 

In  1856  the  far-sighted  sagacity  of  Mayor  Thomas  Swann 
proposed  a  practicable  method  for  securing  the  desired 
improvement.  To  representatives  of  the  Baltimore  City 
Passenger  Railway  Company,  then  seeking  an  original 
franchise  from  the  city.  Mayor  Swann  announced  his  inten- 
tion of  approving  such  a  grant  only  in  the  event  that  it 

or  for  new  and  developing  varieties  of  benevolent  work,  it  may 
possibly  have  its  place;  but  it  should  never  be  entered  on  inad- 
vertently, for  while  all  its  advantages  and  economies  are  greatest 
at  the  beginning,  the  disadvantages  and  dangers  of  it  increase  as 
time  goes  on." 

In  this  connection  mention  should  also  be  made  of  the  excellent 
report  of  the  municipal  commission  appointed  in  Baltimore  in 
1897,  under  the  chairmanship  of  Dr.  Jeffrey  R.  Brackett,  to  propose 
improvements  in  the  care  of  certain  city  poor. 

^  For  details  of  the  acquisition  of  the  parks  of  Baltimore,  see 
"  Report  of  Public  Park  Commission,"  January  i,  1869;  reprinted, 
with  additions  by  Hon.  F.  C.  Latrobe,  in  "  Report,"  December  31, 
1895. 


246  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF    BALTIMORE 

provided  for  the  payment  to  the  city  of  one-fifth  of  the 
gross  receipts  of  the  railway,  to  be  appHed  exclusively 
to  the  construction  of  the  boulevard  or  to  the  purchase  and, 
maintenance  of  parks.  With  a  veto  power  that  could  be 
overridden  only  by  a  three-fourths  vote  of  the  City  Council, 
and  with  a  public  sentiment  strongly  in  sympathy  with 
his  proposal,  Mayor  Swann  was  in  a  position  to  dictate 
terms.  The  franchise  finally  granted,  as  well  as  subse- 
quent concessions  to  local  street  railways,  provided  for  a 
"  park  tax  "  of  twenty  per  cent,  of  gross  receipts. 

The  proceeds  of  the  franchise  tax  were  allowed  to  accum- 
ulate until  i860,  when — the  plan  of  the  boulevard  being 
practically  abandoned — an  unsalaried  commission  consist- 
ing of  the  Mayor  and  four  citizens  was  appointed  for  the 
selection  and  purchase  of  the  sites  of  the  proposed  parks. 
After  public  advertisement  and  careful  deliberation,  the 
present  site  of  Druid  Hill  Park,  a  highly  developed  coun- 
try seat  of  nearly  five  hundred  acres,  was  selected.  This 
was  soon  after  supplemented  by  the  purchase  of  ground 
adjacent  to  the  tract  which  William  Patterson  had  given  the 
city  nearly  thirty  years  before,  now  known  as  Patterson 
Park.  The  City  Register  was  immediately  authorized  to 
issue  city  stock,  redeemable  at  the  end  of  thirty  years  and 
designated  as  "  Public  Park  Stock,"  to  defray  the  obliga- 
tions incurred  by  the  commission  in  the  purchase  of  park 
sites.  The  certificates  of  stock  were  to  be  issued  direct  to 
the  vendors  upon  the  conveyance  of  the  property  pur- 
chased.^ The  proceeds  of  the  franchise  tax  were  pledged 
and  set  apart  primarily  for  the  payment  of  interest  upon 
stock  so  issued.  Of  the  amount  remaining  after  the  pay- 
ment of  interest,  one-fifth  was  to  be  invested  by  the  Register 
as  a  sinking  fund  for  the  ultimate  redemption  of  the  stock 

^  The  entire  arrangement  was  threatened  by  the  unwillingness  of 
the  owner  of  the  site  to  receive  city  stock  in  full  payment.  Delay 
and  litigation  were  averted  by  the  action  of  a  number  of  public- 
spirited  citizens,  each  of  whom  purchased  $10,000  of  city  stock  at 
par,  and  thus  provided  funds  for  the  payment  of  one-fourth  of  the 
purchase  money  in  cash. 


THE   FINANCES   OF  BALTIMORE   CITY,    1857-1897      247 

and  the  remaining  four-fifths  devoted  to  the  maintenance 
and  improvement  of  the  parks/  By  the  same  ordinance  a 
formal  PubHc  Park  Commission  was  constituted  by  the 
addition  of  a  sixth  member  to  the  original  commission. 
The  commissioners  served  without  salary  or  emolument 
of  any  kind  and  held  permanent  tenure,  provision  being 
made  that  any  vacancy  from  death,  resignation  or  failure 
to  serve  should  "  be  filled  by  the  said  commission  itself  and 
be  by  them  reported  to  the  Council  for  and  subject  to  its 
approval,  at  the  first  session  thereafter." 

Subsequent  to  the  acquisition  of  the  first  parks  in  1860-61, 
important  additions  were  made  by  purchase,  condem- 
nation and  gift  to  the  public  areas  of  the  city.^  For  the 
more  important  of  these,  special  issues  of  city  stock  were 
authorized;  minor  purchases  were  made  from  current 
revenues.  The  procedure  adopted  with  respect  to  the 
maintenance  and  administration  of  parks  and  squares  was 
anomalous.  The  larger  areas  were  put  under  the  care  of 
the  Park  Commission;  but  most  of  the  smaller  squares 
were  placed  in  the  control  of  separate  commissioners  ap- 
pointed by  the  Mayor  ordinarily  from  among  the  residents 
of  the  locality.  A  distinct  appropriation  was  made  for  each 
such  area,  and  expended  independently  by  the  correspond- 
ing body  of  commissioners.  The  system  was  wasteful  and 
inefficient  in  the  extreme  and  would  probably  soon  have 
yielded  to  centralized  control  *  but  for  the  modicum  of  local 
patronage  and  petty  authority  which  it  afforded  ward  poli- 
ticians. 

To  defray  the  heavy  cost  of  initial  improvements  in  Druid 
Hill  and  Patterson  Parks,  additional  "  Park  Stock  "  to  the 
amount  of  $150,000  was  issued,  and  the  proceeds  put  at 
the  disposal  of  the  Park  Commission.  From  time  to  time 
special  appropriations  were  also   made  from  the  general 

^During  1860-61  the  sum  of  $511,323.75  was  issued  for  the 
acquisition  of  Druid  Hill  Park  and  $42,642.50  for  the  purchase  of 
additions  to  Patterson  Park.     Cf.  below,  p.  310. 

^  Scharf,  "  History  of  Baltimore  City  and  County,"  pp.  279-281. 

•  This  was  introduced  in  the  new  charter. 


248  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

municipal  treasury,.  But  in  the  main  the  parks  were  main- 
tained from  out  the  proceeds  of  the  street  railway  fran- 
chise tax.  Despite  successive  reductions  in  the  rate  of 
the  tax,  receipts  increased  with  the  growth  of  local  trans- 
portation and  the  amortization  of  the  original  park  indebt- 
edness. The  Commission  was  charged  by  later  ordinances 
with  the  improvement  and  maintenance  of  certain  areas,  for 
which  special  appropriations  had  theretofore  been  made. 
Finally,  after  1891,  all  parks  and  squares,  whether  under 
the  control  of  the  Park  Commission  or  of  special  commis- 
sioners, were  improved  and  maintained  from  out  the  "  park 
fund." ' 

In  the  absence  of  legislative  interference,  the  Park  Com- 
mission enjoyed  practically  absolute  control  over  the  dispo- 
sition of  the  "  park  fund."  ^  The  franchise  tax  was  paid  by 
the  several  street  railways  to  the  city  treasury  and  credited 
to  the  account  of  the  Park  Commission.  Specific  appropri- 
ations were  then  made  by  this  body  for  the  several  parks  and 
squares  and  for  interest  and  sinking  fund  charges  upon 
park  indebtedness.  Undrawn  balances  reverted  back  to 
the  fund  instead  of  to  the  general  city  treasury. 

The  organization  of  the  Park  Commission  underwent 
but  slight  modification  from  its  original  form.  In  1888 
the  number  of  commissioners  was  increased  to  six,  exclu- 
sive of  the  Mayor,  who  served  ex  officio.  The  members 
were  appointed  by  the  Mayor,  subject  to  the  confirmation 
of  the  Council,  and  held  office  during  good  behavior."  In 
the  codification  of  municipal  ordinances  in  1892  this  last 
provision  was  coolly  omitted  by  the  codifier,  without  any 
authority  whatever,  and  a  clause  providing  for  biennial  ap- 
pointment inserted."  This  substitution  was  more  or  less 
responsible  for  an  unfortunate  change  in  the  administration 

^  Ordinance  of  March  24,  1891,  No.  14. 

*  In  addition  to  the  proceeds  of  the  franchise  tax  on  gross  re- 
ceipts of  street  railways,  the  Park  Commission  received  small 
amounts  from  the  sale  of  materials,  privileges,  etc.,  in  the  parks. 

'  Ordinance  of  November  5,  1888,  No.  1 19. 

*  Baltimore  City  Code,  1892,  Art.  27,  sect.  i. 


THE   FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    1857-1897       249 

of  the  parks.  From  its  organization  the  Park  Commission 
was  one  of  the.  few  branches  of  municipal  service  removed 
from  direct  poHtical  influence.  The  incumbents  were  rep- 
resentative citizens  whose  tenure  was  practically  permanent 
The  necessity  for  biennial  appointment  brought  the  Com- 
mission under  political  influence  with  corresponding  loss 
in  economy  and  efficiency. 

Municipal  Buildings. 

The  construction  and  repair  of  all  municipal  buildings 
was  vested  in  the  City  Commissioner  in  1868.'  The  duties 
of  that  official  were  already  multifarious,  and  in  1871  the 
new  office  of  Inspector  of  Public  Buildings  was  created. 
The  incumbent  was  required  to  be  an  experienced  builder 
or  mechanic,  and  was  appointed  annually  as  other  city  offi- 
cers. In  addition  to  acting  as  a  general  building  inspector 
and  issuing  permits  for  special  building  privileges,  he  was 
authorized  to  make  all  contracts,  with  the  approbation  of 
the  Mayor,  for  the  construction  and  repair  of  city  buildings 
and  to  superintend  the  work  when  in  progress.* 

Ordinary  municipal  structures — school-houses,  fire  en- 
gine-houses, market-houses — ^were  erected  and  kept  in  re- 
pair under  the  superintendence  of  the  Inspector  of  PubHc 
Buildings,  as  thus  provided.  The  municipal  budget  con- 
tained appropriations  for  each  specific  purpose  and  unex- 
pended balances  remained  in  the  general  treasury.  Special 
funds  for  the  purchase  of  sites  and  the  erection  of  school- 
houses  were  provided  by  items  of  $400,000  in  the  composite 
loans  of  1888  and  1892  respectively." 

^  Ordinance  of  February  29,  1868.  The  Water  Board  and  the 
Port  Warden  were  specifically  exempted  from  the  operations  of  the 
ordinance.  The  construction  of  police  station-houses  was  entirely 
within  the  control  of  the  Board  of  Police  Commissioners. 

*  Ordinances  of  June  10,  1871,  No.  87;  February  28,  1883,  No.  9. 
The  term  of  office  of  the  Inspector  seems  to  have  been  changed  to 
two  years  in  the  codification  of  1892. 

*  The  $4,500,000  loan  ordinance,  defeated  by  popular  vote  on 
November  8,  1898,  contained  an  item  of  $1,000,000  for  school- 
houses. 


250  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

For  the  construction  of  the  four  important  municipal 
buildings  erected  within  the  period  here  considered — Alms- 
house, Jail,  City  Hall  and  Court  House — special  building 
commissions  were  created  and  special  construction  loans 
were  authorized.  The  procedure  with  respect  to  the  Alms- 
house and  the  Jail  has  already  been  described."  The  City 
Hall  was  erected  in  1867-75  under  the  direction  of  a  build- 
ing committee,  composed  at  first  of  four,  later  of  six  mem- 
bers appointed  by  the  Mayor,  who  served  as  chairman  ex 
oMcio.  The  composition  of  the  committee  was  afterwards 
changed  to  five  members  elected  by  the  two  branches  of  the 
City  Council  in  joint  convention.  The  cost  of  construction 
was  defrayed  by  a  series  of  funded  loans  aggregating  $2,- 
500,000.  The  amount  actually  expended,  including  cost  of 
furnishing,  was  $2,375,400.41,  or  $124,599.59  less  than  the 
amount  made  available.  An  unsalaried  board,  consisting 
of  seven  members,  with  the  Mayor  ex  officio,  styled  "  the 
Building  Committee  of  the  New  Court  House,"  was  ap- 
pointed by  ordinance  in  1893  for  the  construction  of  that 
building.  Funds  were  provided  from  out  the  composite 
loans  of  1892  and  1894,  to  the  aggregate  amount  of  $2,- 
750,000.  In  most  of  the  special  building  commissions  thus 
appointed,  care  was  taken  to  select  representative  citizens  of 
known  integrity  and  capacity,  and  the  results  were  on  the 
whole  far  in  advance  of  the  architectural  mediocrity  and 
commonly  defective  character  of  the  structures  erected  un- 
der the  superintendence  of  the  Inspector  of  Public  Build- 
ings. 

An  important  item  of  municipal  expenditure  in  conjunc- 
tion with  the  maintenance  of  public  buildings  arose  from 
the  reprehensible  practice  of  acquiring  a  mere  leasehold  in- 
terest instead  of  a  freehold  estate  in  the  sites  of  certain 
schools,  engine-houses  and  market-places.  The  system 
was  mischievous  in  that  it  encouraged  false  estimates  as  to 
the  cost  of  proposed  improvements ;  it  was  expensive  in 

^  See  above,  pp.  242-243. 


THE    FINANCES    OF    BALTIMORE    CITY,    1857-1897       25I 

that  the  city  could  borrow  at  a  lower  rate  than  that  at  which 
the  ground-rent  was  capitalized. 

Administrative  Expenses. 

The  assumption  of  new  municipal  functions  and  the 
greater  magnitude  of  ordinary  municipal  activities  resulted 
in  an  appreciable  and  continuous  increase  in  the  adminis- 
trative expenses  of  the  city  after  1856.  The  rise  was  most 
pronounced  in  the  first  fifteen  years  of  the  period  exam- 
ined. Aggregate  expenditures  for  purposes  that  can  fairly 
be  described  as  administrative  were  in  1870  nearly  five  times 
as  great  as  in  1855.  Some  part  of  this  extraordinary  in- 
crease was  due  to  the  laxity  and  waste  of  the  War  and  Re- 
construction periods;  but  the  largest  part  was  the  accom- 
paniment of  marked  expansion  in  the  administrative  and 
fiscal  life  of  the  city.  After  1870  expenditures  of  this  class 
developed  normally  with  the  increase  of  the  general  munici- 
pal budget,  until  in  1895  an  increase  of  somewhat  more  than 
fifty  per  cent,  for  the  twenty-five  years  was  revealed.  The 
multiplication  of  strictly  administrative  offices,  the  increase 
in  the  number  of  positions  not  directly  connected  with  any 
existent  department  of  municipal  service  and  the  gradual 
increase  in  the  level  of  municipal  salaries  were  responsible 
in  the  main  for  the  growth  of  administrative  expenses  in 
this  later  period.  More  distinctive  in  character  was  the  in- 
creasing cost  of  local  elections  and  registrations  of  voters.^ 

^  In  1876  the  conduct  of  local  elections,  before  entrusted  to  the 
police  department,  was  vested  in  a  bi-partisan  Board  of  Supervisors 
of  Elections,  composed  of  three  voters  of  the  city,  appointed  bien- 
nially by  the  Governor  of  the  State  ("  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1876, 
ch.  223).  The  salaries  of  the  Supervisors  and  all  attendant  expenses 
of  elections  and  registrations  were  paid  by  the  city.  The  introduc- 
tion of  the  Australian  ballot  system  in  1890  and  of  annual  registra- 
tion of  voters  in  1896  largely  increased  municipal  expenditures  for 
these  purposes. 

Similarly  the  city  was  charged  with  all  salaries  and  expenses  of 
the  bi-partisan  Board  of  Liquor  License  Commissioners,  con- 
stituted in  1890  (ibid.,  i8go,  ch.  393)  for  the  administration  of  the 
high-license  system  in  Baltimore  and  composed  of  three  persons 
biennially  appointed  by  the  Governor. 


252  the  financial  history  of  baltimore 

Interest  on  Debt. 

The  annual  interest  charge  upon  the  funded  debt  consti- 
tuted by  far  the  largest  single  item  in  municipal  expendi- 
ture during  the  entire  modern  period  of  the  city  govern- 
ment. In  the  first  twenty  years  (1856-1875)  the  aggregate 
outlay  for  this  purpose  increased  rapidly,  corresponding  to 
an  uninterrupted  accumulation  of  funded  indebtedness  and 
an  unchanged  interest  rate.  In  the  succeeding  twenty 
years  the  slower  growth  of  the  funded  debt  was  supple- 
mented by  the  continuous  decline  in  the  rate  of  interest 
upon  municipal  securities,  and  there  occurred  no  further 
increase  in  the  annual  interest  payment.  Charges  upon 
that  part  of  the  funded  debt  issued  for  the  purchase  and 
extension  of  the  water  works  were  defrayed — at  first  in 
part,  later  in  entirety — by  the  Water  Board  from  out  the 
revenues  of  the  department.  Similar  provision  was  made 
by  the  Park  Commission  for  the  interest  upon  the  park 
indebtedness.  The  remaining  charges  were  paid  by  the 
Commissioners  of  Finance  by  means  of  direct  appropria- 
tions from  out  the  general  municipal  treasury.  The  chronic 
practice  of  making  temporary  loans  in  anticipation  of  cur- 
rent loans  entailed  an  appreciable  interest  charge.  This 
became  of  greater  importance  in  the  recurring  intervals  be- 
tween the  accumulation  of  floating  indebtedness  and  the 
funding  of  permanent  deficits.  The  provision  made  for  the 
amortization  of  funded  indebtedness  is  described  in  another 
connection.^ 

*  See  below,  p.  333. 


CHAPTER  III 

MITNICIPAIi  KEVENUE. 

The  dominance  of  the  general  property  tax  among  the 
various  sources  of  municipal  revenue,  clearly  established 
before  1856,  became  in  the  succeeding  period  of  municipal 
history  the  characteristic  feature  of  the  local  budget.  Reve- 
nue from  other  sources  was  either  small  and  inelastic,  as 
receipts  from  markets  and  wharves;  or  temporary  and  un- 
certain, as  dividends  upon  the  city's  holding  of  Baltimore 
and  Ohio  Railroad  Company  stock;  or  appropriated  to 
special  purposes,  as  the  franchise  tax  upon  street  railways, 
devoted  to  the  maintenance  of  parks  and  squares,  and  water 
rentals,  to  the  maintenance  of  water-supply.  Revenue 
from  license  taxes  declined  in  relative  importance  until  after 
the  adoption  of  high  license  taxes  on  liquor  sales  in  1890. 
The  special  assessment  no  longer  defrayed  the  entire  cost 
of  street  reconstruction  and  street  repaving;  although  au- 
thorized, it  was  not  actually  employed  in  connection  with 
the  construction  of  sewers. 

Progressive  expenditure  was  thus  met  almost  exclusively 
by  direct  taxation.  After  the  taxable  basis  had  become 
practically  inelastic,  and  the  tax  rate  had  reached  oppressive 
proportions,  an  effective  check  was  put  upon  municipal 
spending.  Some  further  latitude  was  afforded  by  the  issue 
of  funded  loans  for  purposes  theretofore  the  object  of  cur- 
rent expenditure.  But  the  financial  status  of  the  city  at 
the  close  of  the  period  disclosed  the  urgent  necessity  of 
new  sources  of  local  revenue. 

Taxation. 

General  Property  Tax.^  The  development  of  the  general 
property  tax  from  1856  to  1896  presented  no  novel  feat- 

^  See  Appendix  F. 
(253) 


254  THE   FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

ures.  The  city  remained  without  power  of  local  assessment 
and  the  revaluations  for  state  purposes  were  made  at  long 
and  irregular  intervals.  With  the  assessment  of  realty  at 
its  full  value  and  the  failure  to  reach  intangible  wealth,  the 
aggregate  basis  soon  became  practically  rigid  and  the  tax 
rate  rose  steadily  thereafter.  In  1896  an  important  reas- 
sessment act  was  passed  and  provision  was  made  for  the 
biennial  revision  of  local  valuations. 

(Assessment).  At  the  outset  of  the  period  here  consid- 
ered, the  basis  of  local  taxation  was  the  periodic  revaluation 
made  primarily  for  the  levy  of  the  state  tax,  but  promptly 
utilized  for  municipal  purposes.  Three  persons,  annually 
appointed  by  the  Mayor  and  styled  "  Judges  of  the  Appeal 
Tax  Court,"  were  charged  with  the  correction  of  local  as- 
sessments made  necessary  by  the  transfer  or  loss  of  old, 
and  the  acquisition  of  new  property  since  the  last  general 
revaluation.  No  agencies  existed  for  the  revision  and  cor- 
rection of  valuations  in  the  intervals  between  the  general 
reassessments.  The  last  general  revaluation  of  property 
in  Baltimore  had  thus  been  made  in  1852. 

The  need  of  local  revaluation  became  apparent  in  1857,^ 
and  in  the  following  year  the  city  secured  from  the  state 
legislature  authority  for  a  local  reassessment,  upon  the  con- 
dition that  state  as  well  as  municipal  taxes  should  be  levied 
upon  the  new  basis.'  The  machinery  of  assessment,  the 
determination  of  which  was  left  to  the  city,  was  very 
similar  to  that  employed  in  1852.  The  city  was  divided 
into  ten  districts  of  two  wards  each,  and  three  residents  of 
each  district  were  appointed  a  board  of  assessors  for  the 
valuation  of  property  therein.  The  revision  of  assessments 
was  made  by  a  board  of  control  and  review,  composed  of 
five  persons  similarly  appointed  by  the  Mayor.  All  real 
and  personal  property  was  returned  by  the  taxpayer,  pre- 
sumably at  its  full  cash  value.     Upon  the  completion  of 

*  Mayor's  Message  of  January  19,   1857;  Report  of  Appeal  Tax 
Court,  January,  1857. 
^  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1858,  ch.  241. 


THE   FINANCES   OF  BALTIMORE   CITY,    1857-1897      255 

the  revaluation,  the  Appeal  Tax  Court  resumed  exercise  of 
the  limited  powers  of  correction  before  possessed  without 
apparently  any  new  powers  of  revision/ 

In  1859  the  Appeal  Tax  Court  was  nominally  constituted 
a  permanent  board  of  assessment  and  review.  All  persons 
liable  to  local  taxation  were  required  to  submit  annually  a 
revised  list  of  real  and  personal  assessments,  or  in  default 
thereof  the  valuation  was  made  by  the  Appeal  Tax  Court. 
The  Court  then  sat  as  a  board  of  review  with  final  power 
to  add  to  or  deduct  from  the  valuations  submitted.  This 
extensive  power  was  rendered  virtually  nugatory  by  the 
absence  of  any  adequate  provision  for  its  exercise.  The 
appointment  of  only  two  assessors  was  authorized,  one  of 
whom  was  by  virtue  of  his  appointment  clerk  of  the  Court, 
and  each  of  whom  received  for  services  as  assessor  the 
ridiculous  sum  of  $250  per  annum.''  In  consequence  of  the 
inadequate  assessment  machinery  provided  by  the  ordi- 
nance of  1859,  the  revaluation  of  1858  remained  for  some 
years  the  basis  of  local  levies  with  only  slight  changes.  In 
1862  the  city  petitioned  the  legislature  for  a  general  reas- 
sessment of  property  throughout  the  state — less  however 
for  the  purpose  of  increasing  the  local  basis  than  of  remov- 
ing existing  inequalities  in  valuation  between  city  and 
county,  in  anticipation  of  the  imposition  of  a  direct  federal 
war  tax. 

In  1866  occurred  another  general  reassessment  of  prop- 
erty throughout  the  state.  Baltimore  City  was  divided  into 
five  assessment  districts  of  four  wards  each.  In  each  dis- 
trict, a  board  of  three  assessors  and  a  board  of  control  and 
review  consisting  of  the  same  number  of  persons  was  ap- 
pointed by  the  governor  of  the  state.  The  method  of  valua- 
tion was  essentially  that  prescribed  by  the  local  act  of  1858.* 
The  work  of  the  assessors  in  Baltimore  appears  to  have 
been  characterized  by  negligence  and  incapacity.     Com- 

^  Ordinance  of  May  26,  1858,  No.  25. 

*  Ordinance  of  February  21,  1859,  No.  22. 

' "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1866,  ch.  157. 


256  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

plaint  was  so  bitter  that  upon  the  completion  of  the  assess- 
ment in  1868,  the  General  Assembly  authorized  the  reopen- 
ing df  the  assessment  books  and  imposed  upon  the  Appeal 
Tax  Court  the  task  of  adjusting  as  far  as  possible  the  griev- 
ances and  inequalities  complained  of/  The  number  of 
written  appeals  from  the  decision  of  the  boards  of  review 
which  were  filed  with  the  Appeal  Tax  Court  was  3063,  and 
the  total  abatements  made  by  order  of  the  Court  were  $42,- 
536,337,  out  of  an  aggregate  assessment  of  $238,545,866. 
By  far  the  largest  proportion  of  this  was  caused  by  the 
carelessness  of  the  assessors :  "  Millions  of  stocks  exempt 
from  taxation  by  the  charters  of  the  companies,  and  by  acts 
of  the  legislature,  were  returned  by  the  assessors,  and  of 
course  had  to  be  abated.  Churches,  literary  and  charitable 
institutions,  being  also  exempt  by  law,  had  to  be  stricken 
out.  Personal  property  was,  in  numerous  instances,  as- 
sessed twice,  and  not  infrequently  three  times,  and  neces- 
sarily caused  abatements  to  be  made  in  order  to  do  justice 
to  the  parties." "  Upon  the  completion  of  this  extraordi- 
nary revision,  the  Appeal  Tax  Court  resumed  exercise  of 
its  customary  power. 

A  general  reassessment  of  property  in  Maryland  was  au- 
thorized by  the  legislature  in  1874,"  but  the  measure  was 
subsequently  declared  invalid  by  the  Court  of  Appeals.  Of 
no  greater  practical  importance  was  the  power  conferred 
upon  the  corporation  at  the  same  session  of  the  legislature 
to  reassess  all  property  in  the  city  "  whenever  they  think 
the  public  interest  may  require  it."  *  The  propriety  of  ac- 
tion under  this  enabling  act  was  urged  by  all  branches  of 
the  city  administration;  but  no  practical  measures  were 
taken,  doubtless  in  anticipation  of  an  early  reassessment  of 
property  in  Maryland. 

In  1876  the  General  Assembly  authorized  the  anticipated 

'  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1868,  ch.  126. 

"  Report  of  the  Appeal  Tax  Court,  January  i,  1869. 

* "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1874,  ch.  514. 

*  Ibid.,  1874,  ch.  357. 


THE    FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE   CITY,    1857-1897       257 

reassessment  of  all  property  in  the  state/  In  Baltimore  a 
board  of  three  assessors  for  each  ward  and  a  similar  board 
of  control  and  review  for  every  five  wards  was  appointed 
by  the  governor,  and  general  superintendence  of  the  work 
was  vested  in  the  Appeal  Tax  Court.  In  details  of  organi- 
zation and  in  methods  of  assessment,  the  act  was  essentially 
the  same  as  the  preceding  measures  of  1858  and  1866.  The 
results  attained  in  Baltimore  by  the  reassessment  of  1876 
remained  practically  the  basis  of  local  taxation  for  the  next 
twenty  years,  during  which  time  occurred  no  general  re- 
vision of  valuations.  The  activities  of  the  Appeal  Tax 
Court  during  this  entire  interval  were  limited  to  the  revis- 
ing powers  already  noted.  In  1878  the  Court  was  author- 
ized to  correct  annually  the  assessment  upon  all  property 
that  had  undergone  change  in  value  since  last  assessed; 
but  the  measure  remained  without  important  consequence." 
The  legislature  passed  a  radical  reassessment  act  in  1892, 
but  it  was  vetoed  by  the  governor.  In  1896  the  long  de- 
ferred reassessment  was  authorized.  For  municipal  pur- 
poses the  results  of  this  revaluation  were  not  available  un- 
til 1897,  but  the  measure  can  properly  be  described  in  this 
connection.' 

The  characteristic  features  of  the  assessment  act  of  1896 
were  (i)  the  listing  on  oath  of  all  real  and  personal  prop- 
erty; (2)  the  local  taxation  of  securities  other  than  the 
shares  of  stock  of  all  Maryland  corporations  at  a  fixed 
rate;  (3)  the  taxation  of  the  income  from  mortgages  at  a 
fixed  rate  and  the  apportionment  of  the  proceeds  between 
state  and  city;  (4)  provision  for  the  biennial  revision  of  as- 
sessments of  real  property  and  the  biennial  listing  of  per- 
sonal property. 

Each  of  the  twenty  existing  wards  of  the  city  was 
constituted  an  assessment  district,  and  an  assessor  was  ap- 

' "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1876,  ch.  260. 
'  Ibid.,  1878,  ch.  178. 
*  Ibid.,  ch.  120,  140-143. 

R 


258  THE   FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

pointed  by  the  governor  for  each  precinct.^  These  one 
hundred  and  ninety-eight  precinct  assessors  were  organ- 
ized by  the  Appeal  Tax  Court  into  groups  of  three,  and 
assigned  at  the  discretion  of  the  Court.  The  governor  also 
appointed  six  Boards  of  Control  and  Review  for  Baltimore 
City,  each  composed  of  three  persons,  one  of  whom  be- 
longed to  the  minor  political  party.  Schedules  and  inter- 
rogatories were  prepared  for  the  local  assessors  by  the  State 
Tax  Commissioner — in  whom  was  vested  a  general  super- 
vision of  the  assessment — and  by  them  delivered  to  all  per- 
sons taxable,.  Sworn  listed  return  was  required  of  all  real 
and  personal  property,  and  persons  convicted  of  false  or 
fraudulent  return  were  deemed  guilty  of  willful  perjury  and 
were  liable  to  a  fine  not  exceeding  five  hundred  dollars  or 
imprisonment  not  exceeding  two  years,  and  to  perpetual 
disqualification  from  being  a  witness  in  any  matter  or  con- 
troversy." The  corrected  assessments  pf  property  were  re- 
turned by  the  Boards  of  Control  and  Review  to  the  Appeal 
Tax  Court  and  constituted  a  final  valuation,  save  that  per- 
sons claiming  exemption  or  denying  ownership  of  property 
assessed  to  them  might  appeal  to  the  Baltimore  City  Court. 
Stocks  of  foreign  corporations  and  bonds  of  all  corpora- 
tions were  assessed  at  their  marked  valuation,  and  were  sub- 
ject to  a  local  tax  of  three-tenths  of  one  per  cent.,  in  lieu 
of  the  municipal  levy  upon  other  forms  of  property.  Un- 
released  mortgages  in  Baltimore  City  were  subject  to  a  tax 
of  eight  per  cent,  upon  the  annual  interest  charge,  one- 
fourth  of  the  proceeds  of  which  was  paid  to  the  state.  Pro- 
vision was  made  for  the  biennial  revision  of  the  valuation 
of  real  and  for  the  relisting  of  personal  property,  and  the 

^  The  nominal  qualifications  were  that  the  assessor  must  be  a 
property-owner  and  taxpayer;  a  resident  of  Baltimore  for  two  years 
prior  to  his  appointment;  and  in  possession  of  adequate  knowledge 
of  the  value  of  property  in  the  assessment  district  for  which  he 
was  appointed. 

^  Additional  heavy  penalties  of  fine  and  imprisonment  were  im- 
posed for  failure  to  comply  with  any  provisions  of  the  measure. 


THE   FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    1857-1897       259 

Mayor  and  City  Council  were  authorized  to  appoint  the 
assessors  and  clerical  force  required  for  this  purpose/ 

Corporate  securities  were  at  first  treated  as  all  other  forms 
of  personal  wealth.  The  local  reassessment  act  of  1858  re- 
quired all  domestic  corporations  to  furnish  lists  of  individ- 
ual stockholders.  Resident  stockholders  were  taxed  di- 
rectly; in  the  case  of  non-residents,  the  tax  was  paid  by  the 
corporation.  The  corporation  might  however,  if  it  so 
elected,  pay  the  entire  tax  and  charge  the  amount  expended 
to  the  account  of  the  several  stockholders.  The  actual 
value  of  corporate  securities  was  fixed  by  the  boards  of  con- 
trol and  review,  and  revised  by  the  Appeal  Tax  Court  an- 
nually thereafter.*  The  extension  of  the  principle  of  "  stop- 
page at  the  source,"  that  is  to  say,  the  obligatory  payment 
of  taxes  in  one  amount  by  the  corporation,  instead  of  by 
the  several  shareholders,  was  repeatedly  recommended  by 
municipal  oflficials  after  1866,  but  no  immediate  change  was 
made."  Renewed  attention  was  directed  to  the  matter  by 
the  extraordinary  decline  in  the  assessments  of  the  stock  of 
incorporated  companies  in  the  years  following  1875.  The 
aggregate  valuation  of  such  securities  fell  from  $30,510,260 
in  1875  to  $27,636,677  in  1876,  to  $25,597,870  in  1877,  to 
$21,280,438  in  1878.* 

Prior  to  1874  corporations  appear  to  have  been  taxed 
both  upon  their  capital  stock  and  upon  their  property.  In 
that  year  deduction  was  allowed  in  the  taxation  of  domestic 
corporations  for  any  funded  debt  of  the  state  or  tax-paying 
stock  of  other  domestic  corporation,  held  as  part  of  the  in- 
vestment of  their  capital  or  assets.     Other  forms  of  per- 

*  For  an  instructive  discussion  of  the  operation  of  the  assessment 
act  of  1896,  as  well  as  of  other  phases  of  property  taxation  in 
Baltimore,  see  the  excellent  essay  by  Mr.  T.  S.  Adams  on 
"  Taxation  in  Maryland  "  in  the  volume  of  "  Studies  in  State  Taxa- 
tion," now  in  course  of  publication  as  an  Extra  Volume  of  the 
Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies  in  Historical  and  Political  Science. 

*  Ordinance  of  May  26.  1858,  No.  25. 

*  Report  of  City  Collector,  January  i,  1867;  Report  of  Appeal 
Tax  Court,  January  i,  1871. 

*  Report  of  Appeal  Tax  Court,  January  i,  1878. 


26o  THE   FINANCIAL   HISTORY   OF   BALTIMORE 

sonal  property  and  all  real  property  owned  by  corpora- 
tions continued  to  be  taxed  in  addition  to  their  capital  stock 
until  1877,  when  the  Court  of  Appeals  pronounced  this 
practise  double  taxation  and  unconstitutional/  In  1878  the 
modern  method  of  assessing  the  stock  of  domestic  corpora- 
tions was  adopted/  The  office  of  "  Tax  Commissioner  of 
the  State  of  Maryland  "  was  created  and  vested  with  the 
duty  of  assessing  for  purposes  of  state  taxation  the  stock 
of  all  Maryland  corporations/  The  mode  of  procedure  was 
for  the  Tax  Commissioner  to  deduct  from  the  aggregate 
market  value  of  the  shares  of  capital  stock  of  each  corpo- 
ration the  amount  of  credits  allowed  for  tax-paying  or  tax- 
exempt  investments  of  part  of  its  capital.  The  net  result, 
divided  by  the  number  of  shares  of  capital  stock,  consti- 
tuted the  assessed  taxable  value  of  the  respective  shares  of 
stock.  The  Tax  Commissioner  was  required  to  certify  to 
the  Appeal  Tax  Court  the  assessed  value  of  the  stock  of 
corporations  of  which  any  shareholders  resided  in  Balti- 
more City,  and  upon  this  valuation  the  full  municipal  tax 
rate  was  imposed  and  "  stopped  at  the  source."  The  stock 
of  foreign  corporations,  to  which  this  procedure  could  of 
course  not  be  applied,  was  valued  by  the  local  assessors  in 
the  hands  of  the  owners  as  other  forms  of  personal  prop- 
erty. Bonds  and  certificates  of  debt  were  treated  precisely 
as  shares  of  stock.* 

The  reasessment  act  of  1896  imposed,  as  stated  above, 
a  maximum  tax  of  three-tenths  of  one  per  cent.,  in  lieu  of 
all  other  municipal  charges,  upon  the  actual  market  value 
of  the  bonds  and  certificates  of  indebtedness  of  all  corpo- 
rations and  upon  the  actual  market  value  of  shares  of  stock 
of  foreign  corporations,  owned  by  residents  of  Baltimore. 
National  bank  stock  and  the  stock  of  domestic  corporations 

^  County  Commissioners  of  Frederick  County  vs.  Farmers  and 
Mechanics  Bank  of  Frederick,  48  Md.  188. 
"  "Laws  of  Maryland,"  1878,  ch.  178;  amended  by  ihid.,  1880,  ch.  20. 

•  The  stock  of  national  banks  was  similarly  treated. 

*  For  further  details,  see  "  Report  of  Maryland  Tax  Commis- 
sion," 1888,  pp.  clxvii  et  seq. 


THE   FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    1857-I897       261 

were  taxed  at  the  full  local  rate/  The  tax  on  domestic  se- 
curities was  paid  by  the  corporation;  but  listed  return  of 
such  securities  was  also  required  of  the  individual  holders. 
All  securities  were  assessed  by  the  Appeal  Tax  Court  at 
the  valuation  made  by  the  State  Tax  Commissioner. 

The  experience  of  Baltimore  in  the  attempt  to  assess  gen- 
eral property  for  direct  taxation  in  the  forty  years  examined 
exemplifies  in  almost  every  particular  the  familiar  operation 
of  the  general  property  tax  in  an  industrial  community  pos- 
sessing large  amounts  of  intangible  wealth.  The  great  bulk 
of  stocks,  bonds  and  other  securities,  not  taxed  at  the 
source,  escaped  assessment,  and  this  fact  was  of  necessity 
acquiesced  in  by  the  assessing  agencies.  The  valuations  of 
all  forms  of  personal  property  were  aggregated  in  the  re- 
ports of  the  Appeal  Tax  Court  until  1897,  and  there  is  no 
statistical  evidence  as  to  the  extent  to  which  intangible 
wealth  figured  on  the  assessment  books.  The  repeated  tes- 
timony of  municipal  officials  on  this  score,  however,  leaves 
little  doubt  but  that  a  small  proportion  was  reached.'  The 
adoption  of  the  principle  of  taxing  the  capital  stock  of  do- 
mestic corporations  at  the  source  eflfectively  prevented  the 
escape  of  such  securities  from  assessment.  The  practise  of 
deducting  the  tax-paying  and  tax-exempt  property  from 
the  assessed  value  of  the  capital  stock  was  attended  with 
less  satisfactory  results,  and  the  discrepancy  between  the 
taxable  basis  and  the  actual  tax-paying  capacity  of  certain 
classes  of  corporations  became  notorious.' 

A  further  source  of  loss  arose  from  the  removal  to  Balti- 
more County,  for  residential  purposes,  of  wealthy  persons 

*The  courts  have  been  called  upon  to  determine  whether  national 
bank  stock  should  be  taxed  at  the  full  local  rate  or  at  the  prescribed 
maximum  of  three-tenths  of  one  per  cent. 

'  Report  of  Appeal  Tax  Court,  January,  1857;  Mayor's  Message 
of  January  23,  1871,  p.  6;  Mayor's  Message  of  January  i.  1881; 
"  Report  of  Baltimore  Tax  Commission  of  1885,"  p.  22;  "  Report 
of  Maryland  Tax  Commission  of  1888,"  p.  78  et  seq. 

*  For  the  relation  of  this  principle  of  deducting  corporate  prop- 
erty to  the  municipal  credit  of  Baltimore,  see  below,  p.  349. 


262  THE   FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

engaged  in  business  in  Baltimore  City.  The  General  As- 
sembly in  1862  and  in  1865  ^  undertook  to  subject  to  mu- 
nicipal taxation  all  property  located  in  the  city,  even  though 
the  owners  resided  elsewhere.  The  Constitution  of  1867 
(Art.  3,  sect.  51)  prohibited  this  by  providing  that  "  the  per- 
sonal property  of  residents  of  this  state  shall  be  subject  to 
taxation  in  the  county  or  city  where  the  resident  bona  fide 
resides  for  the  greater  part  of  the  year,  for  which  the  tax 
may  or  shall  be  levied,  and  not  elsewhere,  except  goods 
and  chattels  permanently  located,  which  shall  be  taxed  in 
the  city  or  county  where  they  are  so  located."  ^ 

The  inevitable  inequality  of  property  assessment  in  Balti- 
more was  greatly  aggravated  by  the  long  intervals,  varying 
from  eight  to  twenty  years,  between  the  valuations  of  prop- 
erty. The  Appeal  Tax  Court  possessed  nominal  authority 
for  the  periodic  revision  of  assessed  valuations;  but  in  the 
absence  of  any  adequate  assessing  force  its  activities  were 
limited  in  the  main  to  abatements  for  sale  and  transfer,  and 
to  the  assessment  of  newly  erected  buildings.  From  time 
to  time  the  Court  made  sporadic  eflfort  to  raise  assessments 
in  certain  districts  where  the  existing  valuations  were  con- 
spicuously incorrect,  but  such  "  raids,"  even  when  success- 
ful, simply  contributed  to  the  glaring  inequalities  in  the  as- 
sessed valuation  of  property  in  general.  With  the  growth 
of  the  city  and  the  shifting  of  the  residential  and  mercan- 
tile centres,  the  discrepancy  between  the  assessed  and  the 
actual  value  of  real  property  often  became  marked.  Gross 
injustice  was  suffered  by  the  owners  of  property,  which  for 
one  reason  or  another  had  undergone  depreciation  in  real 
value,  from  the  inability  to  secure  a  revision  of  the  assessed 
valuation.  The  committee  on  municipal  taxation  of  the 
Baltimore  Reform  League  described  and  interpreted  this 
condition  of  aflfairs  with  conservatism  in  1895  in  stating 
"  so  widespread  is  the  belief  that  the  Appeal  Tax  Court  will 
not  accept  the  usual  tests  of  value,  nor  admit  evidence  rele- 

*"  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1862,  ch.  251;  1865,  ch.  119. 
^ "  Baltimore  City  Code,"  1879,  PP-  1059-1060,  note  i. 


THE    FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    1857-1897       263 

vantly  bearing  on  it,  when  it  is  a  question  of  reducing  as- 
sessments, that  over-taxed  owners  usually  take  no  steps  to 
obtain  relief.  The  disinclination  to  abate  assessments,  in 
the  face  of  the  strongest  evidence  of  actual  worth,  probably 
results  from  the  well-grounded  belief  that  a  large  amount 
of  property  in  this  city  is  assessed  considerably  beyond  its 
actual  value,  and  from  the  recognition  of  the  fact  that  the 
tax  rate  is  near  the  danger  point.  This  produces  a  feeling 
that  any  concessions  to  the  owners  of  overvalued  proper- 
ties might  be  taken  as  a  precedent,  and  result  in  a  wide- 
spread demand  on  the  part  of  others  for  similar  treatment, 
which  if  accorded,  would  result  in  a  still  higher  rate  of  tax- 
ation." 

While  under  the  most  favorable  conditions,  personal  in- 
justice and  fiscal  inefficiency  must  have  resulted  from  the 
local  system,  or  rather  complete  lack  of  system,  of  assess- 
ment in  Baltimore,  evidence  is  not  wanting  that  these  evil 
consequences  were  further  accented  by  the  methods  of  ad- 
ministration in  vogue.  Offices  in  the  Appeal  Tax  Court 
were  always  regarded  as  political  appointments  pure  and 
simple,  for  which  no  technical  qualification  was  requisite. 
Property  assessments  were  sometimes  manipulated  for  po- 
litical reward  and  punishment.  Finally  abatements  could 
at  times  be  secured  or  increased  assessments  averted  by  the 
employment  of  the  "  legal  services "  of  well-known  city 
politicians  or  ward  workers.^ 

^  The  remedy  ordinarily  proposed  for  the  evils  of  the  existing 
method  of  property  valuation  in  Baltimore  was  the  annual  or 
biennial  revision  of  assessments  by  a  permanent  assessing  body 
(Mayors'  Messages  of  January  23,  1871;  January  i.  1881;  January 
I,  1884;  Report  of  Appeal  Tax  Court,  January  i,  1880). 

In  1885  a  formal  commission  of  three  persons  was  appointed  to 
examine  the  local  system  of  taxation  and  to  suggest  changes  and 
additions.  The  report  of  the  commission,  presented  in  the  same 
year,  recommended  (i)  municipal  control  of  local  tax  assessment 
and  collection,  (2)  appointment  of  a  permanent  board  of  sixteen 
city  assessors,  (3)  taxation  of  all  personalty  within  the  city,  unless 
bona  fide  residence  for  more  than  six  months  elsewhere  was  proved, 
(4)    triennial   valuation    of  real    and   leasehold   estates    and    annual 


264  THE   FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

(Exemption),  Certain  classes  of  property  were  released 
from  the  payment  of  local  as  well  as  state  taxes  in  the  reas- 
sessments authorized  by  the  state  legislature.  No  exemp- 
tions were  indeed  permitted  by  the  reassessment  acts  of  1852 
and  1866,  nor  by  the  ordinance  of  1858;'  but  a  supplement- 
ary statute  of  1869  released  all  property  of  literary,  chari- 
table and  religious  institutions,  wearing  apparel,  farm- 
ing utensils,  crops,  tools,  personal  property  not  exceeding 
$100  in  value,  mortgages  for  purchase  money,  securities  of 
corporations  already  taxed,  cash  on  hand  and  non-interest 
bearing  deposits/  In  the  reassessment  act  of  1876,  all 
property  used  exclusively  for  religious,  charitable  and  be- 
nevolent purposes  was  exempt  from  state,  county  and  mu- 
nicipal taxation,  as  were  also  crops  in  the  hands  of  the  pro- 
ducer, wearing  apparel  and  mechanics'  working  tools.  The 
important  exemptions  of  the  act  of  1896  were  the  neces- 
sary plant  and  equipment  of  religious,  charitable,  benevo- 
lent, educational  and  literary  institutions;  crops  in  the 
hands  of  the  producer;  wearing  apparel,  except  jewelry  not 
habitually  worn;  the  first  $300  in  value  of  the  agricultural 
implements  of  farmers;  property  belonging  to  corpora- 
tions taxed  upon  their  capital  stock,  and  the  capital  stock 
of  railroads  taxed  upon  gross  receipts  and  property;  book 
accounts  and  bills  receivable  of  merchants  taxed  upon  the 
average  value  of  stock  on  hand.  Mortgages  were  taxed  as 
forms  of  personalty  until  1870,  when  they  were  specifically 
exempted.'    In  1896  they  were  subjected  to  a  special  tax 

valuation  of  all  other  property,  (5)  sworn  return  of  personalty  in 
minutely  detailed  schedules  with  heavy  penalties  for  neglect  or 
false  return,  (6)  final  revision  of  assessments,  upon  appeal,  by  the 
Appeal  Tax  Court,  (7)  payment  of  taxes  in  quarterly  installments, 
discontinuance  of  discounts  for  early  payment,  and  increase  of 
penalties  for  delinquencies. 

^  The  ordinance  of  1858  (sect.  42)  did  release  from  local  taxation 
persons  not  owning  property  to  the  amount  of  $50. 

'"Laws  of  Maryland,"  1868,  ch.  341. 

'Ibid.,  1870,  ch.  394. 


THE   FINANCES   OF  BALTIMORE   CITY,    1857-1897      265 

of  eight  per  cent,  upon  the  gross  amount  of  interest  cove- 
nanted to  be  paid/  Stock  of  Baltimore  City  was  exempt 
from  all  municipal  taxation,  and  the  regular  state  tax  im- 
posed thereon  was  paid  by  the  city  as  in  the  case  of  any 
other  corporation.  No  corresponding  deduction  was  how- 
ever made  from  the  stockholder/ 

The  only  distinctly  local  exemption  of  property  from 
taxation  was  authorized  by  the  General  Assembly  in  1880 
"  to  encourage  the  development  of  manufactures  and  manu- 
facturing industry  in  the  city  of  Baltimore."  Under  this 
authority,  the  Appeal  Tax  Court  was  vested  with  power  to 
abate  municipal  taxes  upon  manufacturing  plants  and  ma- 
chinery, not  properly  taxable  as  real  estate." 

The  spirit  of  the  measure  was  early  abused  by  the  ex- 
emption of  establishments  which  could  only  be  described  as 
manufacturing  plants  by  an  extravagant  use  of  language, 
and  which  were  peculiarly  proper  objects  of  local  taxation. 
The  aggregate  plant  exemption  on  January  i,  1888,  was  $2,- 
085,571  of  which  $602,780  was  on  account  of  two  gas  com- 
panies alone.*  This  state  of  affairs  was  partly  corrected  in 
1893  by  the  enactment  of  a  revised  ordinance,  excepting 
gas,  electric  lighting  companies  and  newspaper  establish- 
ments from  the  operation  of  the  measure  and  requiring  an- 
nual renewal  of  the  exemption  privilege.'  It  is  doubtful 
whether  the  exemption  of  plans  stimulated  industrial  de- 
velopment to  anything  like  the  degree  anticipated.  On 
January  31,  1887,  Mayor  James  Hodges  declared:  "There 
has  been  no  material  increase  in  the  number  of  factories 

^  Ibid.,  1896,  ch.  146  A-F.  '  Cf.  below,  p.  349. 

* "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1880,  ch.  187;  Ordinance  of  February  8, 
1881,  No.  7.  The  measure  owed  its  existence  largely  to  the  efforts 
of  Mayor  F.  C.  Latrobe,  by  whom  it  was  repeatedly  recommended. 
See  Mayors'  Messages  of  January  8,  1877;  January  i,  1879;  Janu- 
ary I,  1880.  The  exemption  of  property  under  this  ordinance  in- 
creased from  $514,867  in  1882,  to  $r, 574,503  in  1884,  to  $1,983,522  in 
1886,  to  $2,100,745  in  1890,  to  $3,405,055  in  1896.  In  1898  the  total 
exemptions  had  increased  to  $4,829,912. 

*  Mayor's  Message  of  January  i,  1888. 

*  Ordinance  of  April  5,  1893,  No.  71. 


266  THE   FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

here  to  justify  these  large  and  increasing  exemptions." 
This  conclusion  was  confirmed  by  later  experience.  Man- 
ufacturing establishments  were  attracted  to  the  city  be- 
cause of  larger  economic  considerations.  It  is  possible 
that  tax  exemption  may  have  been  the  determining  con- 
sideration with  a  limited  number  of  enterprises ;  but  the  ad- 
vantages thus  accruing  to  the  city  were  probably  more  than 
counterbalanced  by  the  increased  burden  of  property  taxa- 
tion due  to  the  steadily  increasing  exemption. 

The  law  of  1888  consolidating  an  adjoining  portion  of 
Baltimore  County  with  the  city  provided  that  until  the  year 
1900  the  rate  of  municipal  taxation  upon  this  "  annex " 
should  not  exceed  the  tax  rate  of  Baltimore  County  for 
1887  (60  cents  on  $100),  and  that  until  1900  there  should 
be  no  increase  in  existing  assessments  of  property  there 
located  for  purposes  of  municipal  taxation.  Faithful  com- 
pliance was  had  with  this  statutory  provision. 

(Limitation  and  Rate).  No  effective  limitation  was  put 
upon  the  taxing  power  of  the  corporation  within  the  period 
here  considered.  In  1858  the  maximum  amount  which  the 
city  might  raise  by  the  "  Direct  Levy  "  was  fixed  at  $800,- 
000.^  In  1864  this  was  increased  to  $1,200,000/  and  in 
1874  all  limitation  was  removed  and  the  corporation,  in  re- 
sponse to  its  own  petition,  vested  with  power  to  fix  the  rate 
of  the  levy  as  municipal  expenditure  might  require."  As 
a  matter  of  fact  even  before  1874,  the  entire  absence  of  any 
limitation  upon  the  amount  of  the  several  municipal  levies 
other  than  the  Direct  Levy,  enabled  the  corporation  to 
raise  by  direct  taxation  whatever  sum  was  needed.*    The 

'  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1858,  ch.  68.  '  Ibid.,  1864,  ch.  69. 

'Ibid.,  1874,  ch.  180;  Resolution  of  Mayor  and  City  Council  of 
February  11,  1874,  No.  39. 

*  Thus  the  statute  of  1858,  limiting  the  yield  of  the  "  direct  levy  " 
to  $800,000,  provided  that  "  said  tax  shall  be  levied  for  the  purpose 
of  defraying  the  expenses  of  said  corporation  that  may  be  over, 
above  and  exclusive  of  all  expenses,  charges  and  costs,  that  they 
now  are  empowered  by  law  to  defray  by  means  of  any  tax  they 
have  or  might  heretofore  have  levied  and  collected."  Similar  pro- 
visions were  contained  in  the  statutes  of  1864  and  1874,  noted  above. 


THE    FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    1857-1897       267 

only  attempt  to  limit  the  rate  of  the  aggregate  tax  levy  was 
a  declaratory  ordinance  of  1859,  that  the  taxes  thereafter 
levied  upon  the  taxable  property  within  the  city  limits 
should  not  exceed  90  cents  on  $100/  But  a  similar  ordi- 
nance in  the  very  next  year  raised  this  maximum  to  $1.00/ 
and  the  rate  actually  levied  in  1861  was  $1.09. 

The  Highway  and  Bridge  Levy  was  imposed  at  a  varying 
rate,  in  lieu  of  the  Direct  Levy,  on  property  located  with- 
out the  limits  of  direct  taxation.  Until  1861  the  rate  ap- 
pears to  have  been  levied  upon  the  aggregate  assessed  val- 
uation, although  nominally  imposed  only  upon  "  houses  and 
lands."*  The  separate  return  of  realty  and  personalty, 
made  after  1861  to  facilitate  the  collection  of  taxes  on  per- 
sonalty, permitted  the  imposition  of  the  rate  on  the  class 
of  property  which  it  was  designed  to  reach.*  In  1874  the 
corporation  was  unconditionally  empowered  to  extend  "the 
limits  of  direct  taxation"  from  time  to  time  as  it  might  deem 
expedient.'  But  in  1874  the  exempted  area  appears  to  have 
been  merged  completely  with  the  city  proper,  for  the  High- 
way and  Bridge  Levy  was  imposed  for  the  last  time  in  that 
year.  After  1876  the  Direct  Levy  was  formally  imposed 
upon  "  assessable  property  in  the  city  of  Baltimore,"  in- 
stead of  upon  that  located  "  within  the  limits  of  direct  taxa- 
tion." 

The  system  of  separate  tax  levies  continued  in  vogue 
throughout  the  entire  period  under  consideration.  The 
seven  levies  already  described  *  were  supplemented  in  i860 
by  a  Police  Levy,  made  necessary  by  the  introduction  of  a 
metropolitan  police  system.  The  growth  of  the  funded  debt 
compelled  the  levy  of  an  Interest  on  Funded  Debt  Levy  in 
1867  and  the  earlier  Internal  Improvements  Levy  was 
merged  with  this  in  1877.  The  participation  of  the  city  in 
the  cost  of  street  reconstruction  resulted  in  a  special  levy 

^  Ordinance  of  May  4,  1859,  No.  JZ- 
'  Ordinance  of  May  16,  i860,  No.  35. 

*  See  above,  p.  150.  *  See  below,  p.  270. 

*  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1874,  ch.  39.        '  See  above,  pp.  148-150. 


268  THE   FINANCIAL  HISTORY   OF  BALTIMORE 

for  this  purpose  after  1868.  The  irregular  course  of  the 
sinking  fund  levies,  authorized  by  successive  loan  ordi- 
nances, is  described  in  another  connection.^  On  the  other 
hand,  the  Court  Levy  v^as  discontinued  in  1876  and  the 
Highway  and  Bridge  Levy  ceased  in  1874  with  the  abolition 
of  the  limits  of  direct  taxation.  The  order  of  importance  of 
the  several  levies  was,  for  the  greater  part  of  the  period,  as 
follows:  Direct  Levy,  Highway  and  Bridge  Levy,  Interest 
on  Funded  Debt  Levy,  Police  Levy,  School  Levy,  Certain 
Expenses  Levy,  Poor  Levy,  Internal  Improvements  Levy, 
Street  Reconstruction  Levy,  Court  Levy,  and  the  various 
sinking  fund  levies." 

In  actual  practice,  the  system  of  distinct  levies  had  lost 
all  real  significance  before  1856,  and  its  subsequent  reten- 
tion, as  has  already  been  stated,  can  only  be  described  as 
a  budgetary  archaism.  The  aggregate  tax  levy  was  ordi- 
narily a  convenient  rate,  determined  with  reference  to  the 
aggregate  estimated  expenditures  of  the  city  and  then  ap- 
portioned among  the  several  distinct  levies,.  The  result 
was  a  rough  correspondence  between  departmental  expen- 
diture and  the  proceeds  of  the  corresponding  levy;  but  the 
levies  were  imposed  in  the  form  of  a  single  tax  rate,  and 
the  gross  proceeds  were  covered  into  the  municipal  treasury 
and  were  appropriated  entirely  at  the  discretion  of  the  cor- 
poration. An  important  exception  to  this  resulted  from 
the  fiscal  independence  of  the  Board  of  Police  Commis- 
sioners.' 

Despite  the  heavy  expenditures  entailed  by  the  develop- 
ment of  municipal  activity  at  the  outset  of  the  period  here 
discussed,  the  aggregate  tax  rate  remained  for  several  years 
below  the  rate  imposed  in  1855  ($i.i8>4)-  This  was  largely 
in  consequence  of  the  reassessment  of  1858.  The  reckless 
financiering  of  the  War  and  Reconstruction  periods  was  re- 
flected in  an  appreciable  rise  in  the  tax  rate,  but  the  more 

*  See  below,  p.  335.  A  water  levy  was  imposed  from  1885  to 
1894;  see  below,  p.  293.  For  the  special  water  tax  in  force  from 
1862  to  1869,  see  below,  p.  292. 

'  See  Appendix  E.  *  See  above,  p.  223. 


THE   FINANCES   OF   BALTIMORE   CITY,    1857-1897      269 

serious  results  were  averted  by  the  notable  increase  in  the 
taxable  basis  brought  about  by  the  reassessment  act  of  1868. 
Similarly  the  upward  course  of  the  tax-rate  was  partially 
checked  by  the  reassessment  of  1876.  After  1880,  the  de- 
liberate restraint  of  municipal  expenditure,  the  periodic  ac- 
cumulation and  funding  of  floating  indebtedness,  the  neg- 
lect of  the  sinking  funds,  and  the  use  of  funded  loans  for 
purposes  theretofore  the  objects  of  current  expenditure, 
combined  to  prevent  any  considerable  increase  in  the  tax 
rate.  At  the  close  of  the  period  all  of  these  resources  had 
been  more  or  less  fully  exploited,  and  the  inevitable  results 
appeared  in  a  tax  rate  of  $2.00  in  1896  and  1897,  and  $2.25 
in  1898.  In  conjunction  with  the  conditions  of  property 
assessment  in  Baltimore,  the  first  rate  was  oppressive  and 
the  second  was  intolerable. 

(Collection).  The  essential  features  of  the  system  of  tax 
collection  underwent  little  change  after  1856.  Taxes  were 
gathered  by  the  City  Collector,^  graduated  discounts  were 
allowed  for  prompt  payment,  and  interest  penalties  and 
legal  processes  were  employed  in  the  case  of  delinquents. 
The  accumulation  and  persistence  of  large  tax  arrearages 
continued  the  serious  problem  of  the  collection  department. 
The  percentage  of  the  general  property  tax  collected  within 
the  year  in  which  it  was  levied  is  shown,  for  the  period 
from  1859  to  1897,  in  the  following  table: 

Year.  Per  Centum.  Year.  Per  Centum. 

1859 59.08  1868 68.90 

i860 56,43  1869 72.60 

1861 58.50  1870 72.44 

1862 68.14  187I 58.42 

1863 71.23  1872 55.33 

1864 7744  1873 5071 

1865 77.43  1874 54.50 

1866 76.36  1875 55.46 

1867 74.72  1876 54.46 

*  The  City  Collector  also  collected  the  State  taxes  levied  in  the 
city  and  received  a  percentage  of  the  proceeds  as  a  special  remun- 
eration therefor. 


270  THE   FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

Year.  Per  Centum.  Year.  Per  Centum. 

1877 63.23  1887 73.71 

1878 60.97  1888 71.22 

1879 65.61  1889 71.45 

1880 70.21  1890 70.31 

1881 74-79  1891 72.44 

1882 72.93  1892 72.79 

1883 71.43  1893 69.38 

1884 71.73  1894 72.17 

1885 72.95  1895 71.84 

1886 73-33  1896 71.26 

With  the  creation  of  the  office  of  City  Comptroller  in 
1857,  the  office  of  City  Auditor  was  abolished  and  the  ac- 
tual inciimbent  was  retained  in  office  only  long  enough  to 
complete  the  unfinished  collection  of  arrearages.  At  the 
end  of  the  designated  period,  a  large  number  of  accounts 
still  remained  open  and  the  office  was  continued  with  its 
separate  clerks  and  bailiiTs.^  In  1859  the  Auditor's  duties 
were  transferred  to  the  Comptroller,  and  although  in  i860 
the  office  of  Auditor  was  revived,  a  single  person  acted 
both  as  Comptroller  and  as  Auditor."  Soon  after  1862  the 
appointment  of  an  Auditor  was  discontinued,  and  there- 
after the  collection  of  arrearages  devolved  upon  the  City 
Collector,  In  1861  the  assessment  of  real  and  personal 
property  was  separated;  larger  discounts  were  offered  for 
the  prompt  payment  of  taxes  on  personal  than  on  real  prop- 
erty; taxes  on  personal  property  were  made  collectible  by 
distraint  within  five  months  after  the  levy  of  the  tax,  while 
taxes  on  real  property  became  in  arrears  and  liable  to  in- 
terest penalties  and  legal  processes  only  after  the  close  of 
the  fiscal  year.'    The  effect  of  these  changes  was  imme- 

^  Ordinance  of  February  26,  1858,  No.  3;  Report  of  City  Col- 
lector, January  i,  1862. 

*  Ordinances  of  September  i,  1859,  No.  102;  March  14,  i860,  No. 
7;  July  14,  i860.  No.  54.  In  1861  the  Collector  was  appointed 
Auditor  for  a  year;  see  Ordinance  of  February  28,  1861,  No.  6. 

'Reports  of  City  Collector,  January  i,  1861,  and  January  i,  1862; 
Ordinances  of  April  i,  1861,  No.  9;  April  27,  1861,  No.  33;  June  2, 
1862,  No.  46;  November  17,  1863,  No.  68. 


THE   FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE   CITY,    1857-1897       27I 

diately  apparent  in  increased  tax  collections.  Between 
1863  and  1 87 1  the  percentage  of  taxes  collected  within  the 
year  of  the  levy  fell  below  72  per  cent,  upon  but  one  occa- 
sion, and  tax  arrearages,  although  considerable,  were  not 
serious  enough  to  embarrass  municipal  finances.  The  suc- 
ceeding decade,  with  its  long-continued  industrial  depres- 
sion and  its  earlier  termination  of  the  fiscal  year,^  showed 
far  less  favorable  results.  In  1873  a  little  more  than  one- 
half  of  the  taxes  levied  in  that  year  were  collected,  and 
at  no  time  before  1880  were  arrearages  less  than  34  per 
cent.  This  large  amount  of  delinquency,  the  evil  effects 
of  which  are  discussed  in  another  connection,*  was  variously 
explained  as  due  to  the  inadequate  force  of  the  collector's 
office,  to  the  imperfections  of  the  laws  and  ordinances 
relating  to  the  sales  of  property  for  taxes  in  arrears,  to 
the  lateness  of  the  levy  and  the  shortness  of  the  discount 
period,  and  to  the  laxity  of  the  city  in  enforcing  collec- 
tions.* Probably  the  last  factor  was  the  most  important,  and 
the  decline  in  tax  arrears  after  1879  was  largely  due  to  a 
more  rigid  enforcement  of  tax  levies.  The  rate  of  munici- 
pal taxation  and  general  economic  conditions  exerted  im- 
portant influence  upon  tax  collections;  but  other  things  be- 
ing equal,  the  percentage  received  in  any  given  year  was 
dependent  upon  the  capacity  and  industry  of  the  City  Col- 
lector. 

The  system  of  graduated  discounts  for  the  early  payment 
of  taxes  remained  in  vogue  during  the  entire  period  consid- 
ered. The  results  in  Baltimore  confirm  the  unfavorable  ex- 
perience of  American  states  and  cities  in  the  use  of  this  fiscal 
device.     The  allowance  of  discounts  was  unnecessary,  since 

^  See  above,  p.  205.  *  See  below,  p.  329. 

* "  So  much  indulgence  has  been  given  in  the  past  to  delinquent 
tax-payers  that  many  of  them  have  come  to  believe  that  the  pay- 
ment of  taxes  in  arrears  cannot  be  enforced  until  after  the  expira- 
tion of  three  years  from  the  time  they  fall  due."  after  which  they 
were  barred  by  limitation.  Report  of  City  Collector,  January  10, 
1880.  The  existing  practise  and  the  need  of  new  methods  are 
clearly  set  forth  in  this  well-written  report. 


2,^2  THE   FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

the  prompt  payment  of  taxes  could  be  compelled  by  legal 
process.  It  wrought  marked  inequality  between  citizens 
who  could  afford  to  avail  themselves  of  the  maximum  dis- 
counts and  the  poorer  tax-payers  who  could  not.  It  was  a 
most  expensive  method  of  supplying  the  municipal  treas- 
ury with  funds  for  current  expenditure,  since  the  discounts 
allowed  were  far  in  excess  of  the  rate  at  which  the  city  could 
borrow  money.  Finally  it  encouraged  the  mischievous  at- 
titude that  the  prompt  payment  of  taxes  was  an  unusual  act 
entitled  to  reward  instead  of  mere  compliance  with  civic 
duty.^  The  entire  repeal  of  the  discount  system  was  rec- 
ommended by  the  Baltimore  Tax  Commission  of  1885,  and 
public  sentiment  rapidly  tended  in  that  direction  thereafter,.' 

License  Taxes. 

The  relative  importance  of  license  taxes  in  the  financial 
system  of  Baltimore  declined  with  the  growth  of  the  mu- 
nicipal budget  and  the  larger  recourse  to  direct  property 
taxation.  The  appropriation  of  traders'  licenses  or  privi- 
lege taxes  by  the  state  tended,  probably  more  than  other 
circumstances,  to  prevent  a  larger  local  use  of  this  fiscal 
device.  During  the  greater  part  of  the  period  here  con- 
sidered local  license  taxes  continued  to  be  used  primarily 
for  regulative  rather  than  for  financial  purposes.  Many  of 
the  charges  were  in  the  nature  of  license  fees  "  imposed  to 
cover  the  cost  of  regulation  or  to  meet  the  outlay  incur- 
red," rather  than  license  taxes,  designed  "  to  bring  in 
a  distinct  net  revenue  to  the  government  above  the  cost  of 
regulation."  *  Yet  the  fiscal  consideration  was  never  en- 
tirely absent,  and  after  1890  it  became  at  least  a  co-ordinate 

^ "  Report  of  Massachusetts  Tax  Commission,"  1875,  pp.  71-79- 
^  The    discount    system   was    greatly    modified    but   not    entirely 
abolished  in  the  new  city  charter. 

■  Seligman,  "  Essays  in  Taxation,"  p.  279.  It  has  been  found 
necessary  to  sacrifice  the  distinction  which  Professor  Seligman  has 
drawn  with  characteristic  acuteness,  and  to  conform  to  local  usage 
in  aggregating  all  such  receipts,  as  "  license  taxes." 


THE   FINANCES   OF  BALTIMORE   CITY,    1857-1897      273 

influence  in  the  new  license  taxes  actually  imposed,  as  well 
as  the  chief  impulse  to  a  further  extension  of  the  system. 

Little  or  no  qualitative  change  was  made  in  the  license 
taxes  in  vogue  before  1856.  Vehicles,  market  traders, 
pubHc  amusements,  pawnbrokers,  dogs  were  the  important 
categories/  The  earlier  charges  were  changed  in  amount 
from  time  to  time  and  new  ones  were  occasionally  imposed. 
Thus,  upon  the  introduction  of  street  railways  in  1859,  a 
license  tax  of  $20  per  annum  was  imposed  upon  street-cars, 
and  reduced  in  1873  to  $5.''  In  1864  a  permit  from  the 
City  Commissioner,  approved  by  the  Mayor,  was  required 
for  the  construction  of  private  sewers,  and  a  specific  charge 
of  twenty  cents  for  each  lineal  foot  of  ground  covered  was 
imposed  upon  the  owner  but  was  commonly  avoided."  In 
1 88 1  a  nominal  license  tax  was  imposed  upon  retail  dealers 
in  petroleum,  and  in  1890  a  heavier  annual  charge  was  put 
upon  street  sales  of  fruits  and  vegetables.  In  1891  the 
ordinances  of  the  city  relating  to  the  inspection  of  buildings 
were  revised,  and  additional  license  charges  were  imposed 
for  the  erection  of  certain  structures.* 

License  taxes  were  imposed  and  collected  annually  by  the 
Comptroller.  The  only  exception  was  the  license  charges 
upon  market  dealers  which,  during  the  greater  part  of  the 
period,  were  collected  by  the  market  clerks,  and  then  paid, 
together  with  stall  rentals,  to  the  Comptroller  in  quarterly 
account.  The  practise  encouraged  laxity  and  irregularity 
and  was  finally  discontinued  for  direct  payment  to  the 
Comptroller."  In  point  of  annual  yield,  the  license  taxes 
on  vehicles  were  the  most  important  of  these  earlier 
charges;  this  was  largely  because  of  the  incorporation  of 

*  See  above,  p.  158. 

""  Ordinance  of  March  28,  1859,  No.  44,  and  April  30,  1873,  No.  ^^. 
'  See  above,  p.  213. 

*  Ordinance  of  October  23,  1891,  No.  146.  In  1892  the  legislature 
authorized  the  Mayor  to  issue  permits  to  poor  persons  to  peddle 
small  wares  within  the  corporate  limits;  in  lieu  of  paying  the 
ordinary  trader's  license  tax  to  the  state,  such  persons  paid  the 
sum  of  $7  to  the  city  (Laws  of  Maryland,  1892,  ch.  90). 

■*  Cf.  below,  pp.  296-297. 
s 


274  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

the  old  specific  taxes  therewith.  The  market  Ucenses  came 
next  in  order;  but  the  proceeds  were  ordinarily  merged 
with  the  rentals  and  other  receipts  of  the  market  clerks.  Of 
the  remaining  taxes,  only  those  imposed  on  public  amuse- 
ments yielded  an  appreciable  revenue.^ 

Within  the  last  few  years  of  the  period  here  considered, 
two  of  the  most  important  license  taxes  in  the  fiscal  system 
of  Baltimore  were  imposed.  As  a  result  of  long-continued 
agitation  the  General  Assembly  in  1890  authorized  a  high 
Hcense  tax  on  retail  liquor  sales  in  Baltimore.  Distinct 
administrative  machinery  was  provided  by  the  creation  of 
a  bi-partisan  Board  of  Liquor  License  Commissioners,  com- 
posed of  three  members  biennially  appointed  by  the  Gov- 
ernor. Licenses  were  granted  by  the  Board  under  moder- 
ately stringent  regulation  and  subject  to  an  annual  tax  of 
$250.  Payment  was  made  to  the  Clerk  of  the  Court  of 
Common  Pleas  and  transferred  in  quarterly  account  to  the 
state  treasury.  One-fourth  of  the  proceeds  was  retained  by 
the  state  and  the  remainder  paid  over  to  the  city.  The 
salaries  of  the  Board  of  Liquor  License  Commissioners  and 
all  attendant  expenses  were  charged  to  the  city.*  The 
large  proportion  of  the  tax  withheld  from  the  city  was  nomi- 
nally a  compensation  for  the  loss  of  revenue  from  the  aban- 
donment of  the  old  state  license  tax.  As  a  matter  of  fact  it 
was  much  in  excess  of  this  amount,  and  was  to  that  extent 
a  tribute  levied  by  the  legislature,  overwhelmingly  con- 
trolled by  the  counties,  upon  the  city  for  the  passage  of  a 
purely  local  measure.     It  was  one  of  the  infrequent  in- 

^  In  1898  the  license  tax  on  dogs  was  reimposed  with  penalties  for 
non-compliance.  In  connection  therewith,  a  contract  was  made 
with  the  Maryland  Society  for  the  Prevention  of  Cruelty  to  Animals 
for  the  impounding  of  stray  and  unlicensed  dogs.  The  Society 
received  a  certain  specified  amount  and  also  such  part  of  the  dog 
licenses  and  fines  as  might  be  necessary  to  defray  the  expenses 
incurred  (Ordinance  No.  96  of  June  15,  1898).  The  measure  re- 
sulted in  an  astonishing  increase  in  the  proceeds  of  the  tax,  no  part 
of  which  could,  however,  be  used  for  ordinary  municipal  purposes. 
The  legality  of  the  ordinance  was  attacked,  and  the  case  is  now 
pending. 

^ "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1890,  ch.  343. 


THE   FINANCES   OF  BALTIMORE   CITY,    1857-1897      275 

stances  in  the  financial  history  of  Baltimore  of  that  mis- 
chievous interference  of  a  state  legislature  in  city  affairs,  to 
which  many  of  the  gravest  abuses  in  American  municipal 
government  are  due.  Despite  the  large  quota  retained  by 
the  state,  the  net  proceeds  of  the  liquor  license  tax  at  once 
became  next  to  the  general  property  tax  the  most  important 
source  of  revenue  in  the  municipal  budget.  It  was  from  its 
very  nature  inelastic ;  but  in  every  other  respect  it  was  found 
to  be  as  fiscally  sound  as  socially  expedient.^ 

A  license  tax  of  $2  per  annum  was  imposed  in  1893  upon 
every  telegraph,  telephone,  electric  light  or  other  pole  be- 
longing to  any  person  or  corporation.  The  poles  used  ex- 
clusively for  stringing  trolley  wires  of  street  railways  were 
specifically  exempted  from  the  tax.  Owners  made  return 
of  the  number  of  poles  and  paid  the  tax  imposed  thereon 
to  the  Comptroller,  who  issued  a  numbered  tin  plate  to  be 
affixed  to  each  pole."  The  tax  served  important  fiscal  and 
regulative  purposes.  The  proceeds  of  the  charge  exceeded 
the  receipts  from  any  of  the  license  taxes  except  those  im- 
posed on  liquor  sales  and  on  vehicles.  It  placed  some 
check  upon  the  duplication  of  poles,  and  discouraged  the 
further  extension  of  overhead  wire  service.  Both  of  these 
results  emphasized  the  error  of  exempting  the  trolley  poles 
of  street  railways  from  the  tax.' 

Franchise  Taxes. 

The  experience  of  Baltimore  with  respect  to  its  public 
franchises,  save  in  one  notable  particular,  has  been  that  of 
the  ordinary  American  city^  The  sagacity  and  far-sighted- 
ness of  Mayor  Thomas  Swann  early  introduced  the  prin- 
ciple of  a  franchise  tax  upon  the  gross  receipts  of  street 
railways,  and  this  in  more  or  less  modified  form  remained 

*  The  income  of  the  city  from  liquor  licenses  was  as  follows: 
1891,  $384,012.17;  1892,  $380,315.14;  1893,  $390,137-89;  1894,  $403,- 
985.78;  1895,  $405,891.95;  1896,  $400,181.53. 

*  Ordinance  of  April  20,  1893,  No.  86. 

*  It  has  been  said  that  the  exemption  was  absolutely  necessary  to 
secure  the  passage  of  the  measure. 


2/6  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

the  subsequent  course  of  the  municipahty.  In  the  case  of 
Other  industries  of  service — gas  supply,  electric  lighting, 
telegraphs,  telephones — a  policy  of  wasteful  prodigality  was 
pursued.  The  use  of  the  city  streets,  involving  public  in- 
convenience and  private  gain,  were  conferred  again  and 
again  for  no  consideration  whatever.  To  this  end  both  the 
blind  negligence  of  the  municipal  administration  and  the 
unwarranted  interference  of  the  state  legislature  contri- 
buted. Not  until  the  closing  years  of  the  period  here  ex- 
amined was  any  evidence  afforded  of  a  saner  municipal 
policy  with  respect  to  municipal  franchises.  This  was  in- 
adequately indicated  in  the  imposition  of  a  franchise  tax  on 
telephone  conduits  in  1889  and  fully  expressed  in  the  fran- 
chise provisions  of  the  new  charter,^ 

Street  Railways.  The  introduction  of  street  railways  in 
Baltimore,  although  proposed  several  years  earlier,  was 
first  actively  agitated  in  1858.  Efforts  were  then  made  to 
secure  the  necessary  articles  of  incorporation  and  franchise 
grants  from  the  General  Assembly  and  from  the  City 
Council,  but  without  success.  In  March,  1859,  after  a  sharp 
struggle,  a  voluntary  association,  the  nucleus  of  the  Balti- 
more City  Passenger  Railway  Company,  succeeded  in  ob- 
taining the  passage  of  a  municipal  ordinance  authorizing  the 
laying  of  tracks  and  the  operation  of  street  railways  in  the 
most  important  thoroughfares  of  the  city." 

Through  the  far-sighted  wisdom  of  Mayor  Thomas 
Swann,  the  franchise  granted  by  the  city  was  made  subject 
to  important  limitations.  The  projectors  of  the  railway 
were  required  to  purchase  the  property  of  the  existing  om- 
nibus lines ;  the  passenger  fare  was  limited  to  a  maximum  of 
five  cents  with  free  transfers ;  an  annual  license  tax  of  twenty 

^  An  important  influence  was  doubtless  exerted  by  the  decision 
of  the  Maryland  Court  of  Appeals  {77  Md.  354)  and  the  United 
States  Supreme  Court  (166  U.  S.  673)  in  the  "  Lake  Roland  Ele- 
vated Railway  Company  Case,"  that  a  franchise  granted  by  the  city 
is  in  the  nature  of  a  license,  subject  to  reasonable  modification, 
rather  than  an  inviolable  contract. 

^  Ordinance  of  March  28,  1859,  No.  44. 


THE   FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    1857-1897       277 

dollars  was  imposed  on  cars,  and  the  Company  was  required 
to  keep  in  repair  the  portion  of  the  street  covered  by  the 
tracks,  including  two  feet  from  the  outer  limits.  The  city 
reserved  the  right  to  purchase  at  intervals  of  fifteen  years 
the  entire  stock  and  equipment  of  the  Company,  the  value 
thereof  to  be  determined  by  arbitration,  if  necessary/  Most 
important  of  all,  a  franchise  tax  was  imposed  of  one-fifth 
of  the  gross  receipts  "  accruing  from  the  passenger  travel 
upon  said  roads  located  within  the  city  limits  under  this 
ordinance,  or  any  extension  of  said  limits  which  may  be  de- 
termined upon  hereafter."  The  proceeds  of  the  franchise 
tax  were  appropriated  exclusively  to  the  establishment  and 
improvement  of  the  new  boundary  avenue,  then  contem- 
plated, and  to  the  purchase  and  improvement  of  public 
parks  for  the  city.  The  city  reserved  the  right  to  reduce 
the  rate  of  passenger  fare  within  the  range  of  the  gross 
receipts  tax,  relinquishing  after  such  reduction  a  corre- 
sponding proportion  of  the  tax, 

^  This  provision,  in  the  practically  unchanged  form  in  which  it 
was  inserted  in  the  act  of  incorporation  granted  by  the  Generjii 
Assembly  in  1862  ("  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1862,  ch.  71),  is  interesting 
and  important  enough  to  warrant  citation  in  full: 

"  The  said  Mayor  and  City  Council  shall  have  the  privilege, 
within  two  years  after  the  expiration  of  fifteen  years  from  the  date 
of  the  passage  of  said  ordinance,  to  purchase  and  buy  out  the  said 
corporation,  and  all  its  property  and  franchises,  whether  originally 
conceded  by  the  ordinance  aforesaid,  or  granted  by  this  act,  for  and 
at  a  fair  and  equitable  consideration,  or  value,  and  in  case  of  a 
disagreement,  as  to  the  said  value  and  consideration,  the  Mayor  and 
City  Council  aforesaid,  shall  appoint  one  referee,  and  the  corpora- 
tion hereby  created  shall  appoint  another  referee,  who,  in  event  of 
disagreement,  shall  appoint  an  umpire,  the  decision  of  whom  shall 
be  final  as  to  the  price  to  be  paid  as  aforesaid;  and  provided  further, 
that  if  the  said  Mayor  and  City  Council  shall  decline  or  neglect  to 
give  notice  to  the  said  corporation  of  their  intention  to  make  said 
purchase  within  the  aforesaid  two  years,  then  the  grants  and  privi- 
leges held  and  enjoyed  by  the  corporation  shall  continue  to  belong 
to  it  for  fifteen  years  longer  from  the  expiration  of  said  original 
fifteen  years,  subject  to  all  the  terms  and  conditions  imposed  and 
recognized  by  this  act,  and  continuable  thereafter  in  like  manner 
from  time  to  time  as  aforesaid,  upon  the  said  terms  and  condi- 
tions." 

The  municipal  franchise  was  conferred  in  March,  1859,  mak- 
ing the  purchase  periods  1874-76,  1889-91,  1904-1906,  etc. 


2/8  THE    FINANCIAL    HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

Within  less  than  three  weeks  after  this  franchise  had  been 
granted,  the  grantees  disposed  of  their  interest  therein  to  a 
Philadelphia  syndicate  for  a  consideration  reported  to  have 
been  $100,000/  This  transaction  excited  popular  rage  and 
bitterness.  It  not  only  demonstrated  that  the  city  had 
conferred  the  franchise  at  much  less  than  its  real  value ;  but 
prevented  a  popular  subscription  to  the  stock  of  the  asso- 
ciation and  precluded  the  conduct  of  the  enterprise  by  local 
interests  which  the  original  ordinance  had  contemplated. 

Popular  animosity  took  the  form  of  intense  opposition  to 
the  incorporation  of  the  association  and  to  the  confirma- 
tion of  the  municipal  grant  by  the  state  legislature,  then 
deemed  necessary.  A  rival  association  ofifering  reduced 
fare  was  endorsed;  a  legislative  inquiry  was  instituted  into 
the  circumstances  under  which  the  original  franchise  had 
been  secured  and  assigned,  and  a  substitute  enterprise  con- 
trolled by  local  interests  was  urged.  As  a  result  of  this 
combined  opposition,  articles  of.  incorporation  were  denied 
by  the  legislature  for  several  years,  and  not  until  February, 
1862,  were  the  requisite  confirmatory  grant  and  corporate 
privilege  secured. 

The  original  attitude  of  the  municipality  to  street  rail- 
ways was  thus  intelligent  and  far-sighted.  Municipal 
ownership  seems  to  have  been  seriously  considered  and, 
but  for  the  extent  to  which  the  city  was  then  involved  with 
the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  Railroad,  might  have  perhaps  been 
realized.  It  was  certainly  entertained  as  an  ultimate  policy 
of  the  city.  This  was  evident  not  only  in  the  insertion  of 
the  fifteen  years  purchase  clause  in  the  municipal  franchise, 
but  in  the  repeated  expressions  of  willingness  and  ability  to 
enter  upon  municipal  construction  made  while  the  incor- 
poration of  the  voluntary  association  was  under  discussion. 
Even  thereafter,  in  1865,  a  proposition  of  the  street  railway 
company  (made  under  stress  of  financial  embarrassment) 
to  sell  franchise  and  property  to  the  city  at  actual  cost,  or 
if  preferred,  at  a  valuation  to  be  ascertained  by  arbitration, 

*  Scharf,  "  History  of  Baltimore  City  and  County,"  p.  363. 


THE   FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    1857-1897       279 

was  seriously  considered/  In  lieu  of  the  profits  of  munic- 
ipal ownership  and  operation,  a  franchise  tax  was  imposed 
on  the  gross  receipts  of  the  street  railway  company.  The 
value  of  the  streets  and  the  profits  likely  to  be  realized  from 
local  transportation  were  clearly  recognized.  The  alterna- 
tives presented  were:  should  the  city's  share  be  realized  in 
the  form  of  reduced  passenger  fare  or  in  the  form  of  a  tax 
on  gross  receipts !  The  eagerness  of  Mayor  Thomas  Swann 
to  secure  funds  for  the  purchase  and  support  of  municipal 
parks  was  probably  responsible  for  the  adoption  of  the 
franchise  tax,  and  this  sagacious  choice  determined  subse- 
quent municipal  policy.^ 

In  the  forty  years  succeeding  the  projection  of  the  first 
street  railway  in  Baltimore,  an  elaborate  system  of  local 
transportation  was  evolved.  During  the  greater  part  of 
this  period,  transit  service  was  slowly  extended  by  the  crea- 
tion of  new  companies  and  the  grant  of  independent  fran- 
chises. Beginning  with  1888  rapid  transit  was  introduced, 
the  numerous  independent  companies  were  consolidated 
into  a  few  great  systems,  and  service  was  extended  by 
grants  supplementary  to  the  original  franchises."  The  es- 
sential features  of  the  first  street  railway  franchise  were  re- 
produced in  the  successive  grants  made  thereafter.  An 
important  exception  to  this  was  the  fifteen-year  purchase 
clause  which  was  unfortunately  omitted  from  all  later 
franchises.*  The  tax  on  gross  receipts,  the  license  tax  on 
cars,  the  fixture  of  a  maximum  passenger  fare,  and  the  re- 
quirement to  keep  in  repair  the  portion  of  the  street  bed 
occupied,  figured  in  the  specific  franchises  and  were  incor- 
porated in  general  statute  law. 

'  Scharf,  "  History  of  Baltimore  City  and  County,"  p.  365. 

*  In  the  one  instance  in  which  a  franchise  was  conferred  v/ithout 
the  gross  receipts  tax,  the  maximum  fare  was  limited  to  three  cents 
(Ordinance  of  Dec.  7,  1859,  No.  6). 

*  As  these  pages  are  passing  through  the  press,  the  inevitable 
tendency  to  combination  has  resulted  in  the  complete  consolida- 
tion of  the  street  railways  into  a  single  system. 

*  It  did,  however,  appear  in  a  second  minor  franchise  granted  in 
1859  (see  Ordinance  of  Dec.  7,  1859,  No.  6). 


280  THE   FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

The  financial  relations  of  the  municipality  and  the  street 
railways  however  underwent  important  modifications  within 
the  period  considered.  This  resulted  from  the  reduction  of 
franchise  payments,  (i)  by  legislative  enactment;  (2)  by 
judicial  interpretation. 

(i)  During  the  Civil  War,  the  Baltimore  City  Passenger 
Railway  Company  was  permitted  to  make  a  charge  for 
transfer  tickets  and  to  increase  the  rate  of  fare  from  five  to 
six  and  later  to  seven  cents — the  latter  increase  as  a  com- 
pensation for  the  war  tax  on  gross  receipts.  Application 
was  made  to  the  legislature  for  a  reduction  of  the  franchise 
tax,  but  without  success.  In  1870  the  federal  statute  per- 
mitting common  carriers  to  recoup  themselves  for  the  in- 
ternal revenue  tax  was  repealed  and  the  fare  of  the  local 
street  railways  was  reduced  to  six  cents.  In  1873  ex-Gov- 
ernor Oden  Bowie  was  elected  president  of  the  Baltimore 
City  Passenger  Railway  Company,  and  remained  in  that 
office  until  his  death  in  1894.^  A  strong  personal  influence 
and  a  wide  political  experience  were  thus  enlisted  in  the 
interest  of  the  local  street  railways,  with  most  effective  re- 
sults. In  April,  1873,  the  City  Council  reduced  the  license 
tax  on  street  cars  from  $20  to  $5  per  annum,  and  specifi- 
cally exempted  the  capital  stock  and  property  of  the  com- 
panies from  all  other  local  taxes  as  long  as  this  license  tax 
and  the  twenty  per  cent,  franchise  tax  should  be  paid.*  But 
still  further  "  economies  "  were  in  view,  and  at  the  session 
of  1874  a  memorial  was  presented  to  the  General  Assembly 
asking  for  a  reduction  of  the  franchise  tax  from  twenty  to 
ten  per  cent,  of  gross  receipts.  The  legislature  declined  to 
act  in  the  matter,  and  recourse  was  had  to  the  City  Council. 
This  body  proved  more  tractable,  and  in  June,  1874,  the 
franchise  tax  upon  the  gross  receipts  of  the  street  railways 
was  reduced  from  twenty  to  twelve  per  cent."    The  only 

*  It  is  probably  something  more  than  a  mere  coincidence  that  the 
vacancy  created  by  ex-Gov.  Bowie's  death  was  filled  by  the  election 
of  an  ex-Governor  of  Maryland. 

'  Ordinance  of  April  30,  1873,  No.  yT. 

'  Ordinance  of  June  9,  1874,  No.  48. 


THE    FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE   CITY,    1857-I897       281 

concession  received  by  the  city  in  return  for  this  extraordi- 
nary gift  was  the  substitution  of  conductors  for  fare  boxes 
upon  certain  Hnes,  and  the  limitation  of  children's  fares  to 
four  cents.  For  the  next  eight  years  the  integrity  of  the 
franchise  tax,  although  on  several  occasions  assailed,  was 
not  affected.  A  strenuous  effort  in  1882  was  finally  suc- 
cessful, and  in  return  for  a  reduction  of  passenger  fares  from 
six  and  four  to  five  and  three  cents,  respectively,  and  the 
sale  of  transfer  tickets  at  three  cents,  the  General  Assembly 
authorized  the  reduction  of  the  franchise  tax  from  twelve 
to  nine  per  cent,  of  gross  receipts.^ 

No  further  change  was  made  in  the  rate  of  the  fran- 
chise tax.  By  the  legislation  of  1882  all  control  over  the 
matter  was  practically  taken  from  the  City  Council  and 
vested  in  the  General  Assembly.  Almost  every  subse- 
quent legislative  session  witnessed  a  more  or  less  persistent 
effort  on  the  part  of  the  street  railway  companies  to  secure 
some  further  abatement;  but  the  intensity  of  public  senti- 
ment in  Baltimore  and  the  increasing  importance  of  the 
proceeds  of  the  tax  in  the  municipal  budget  were  able  to 
prevent  any  reduction. 

(2)  Although  the  rate  of  the  "park  tax"  remained  un- 
changed after  the  reduction  to  nine  per  cent,  by  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  in  1882,  the  revenue  of  the  city  from  this 
source  was  seriously  affected  thereafter  by  judicial  interpre- 
tation. In  1887  the  Baltimore  Union  Passenger  Railway 
Company,  operating  a  railway  of  which  ^  mile  lay  with- 
out the  city  limits,  refused  to  pay  the  franchise  tax  on  more 
than  fifty  per  cent,  of  its  gross  receipts.  This  refusal  was 
justified  on  the  ground  that  the  franchise  tax  was  imposed 
only  upon  gross  receipts  within  the  city  and  that  fifty  per 
cent,  represented  a  reasonable  proportion  of  the  total  re- 
ceipts collected  within  the  taxable  area. 

The  city  declined  to  accept  such  an  arbitrary  apportion- 

^  Laws  of  Maryland,  1882,  ch.  229.  The  reduction  in  fare  was  the 
actual  rather  than  the  statutory  consideration  for  the  lower  fran- 
chise tax. 


282  THE    FI^STANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

ment  and  the  matter  was  brought  up  for  judicial  determi- 
nation. In  a  decision,  which  from  the  standpoint  of  the 
city's  interest  can  only  be  regarded  as  most  unfortunate, 
the  Court  of  Appeals  sustained  the  opinion  of  the  lower 
court  that  the  part  of  the  track  located  outside  of  the  city 
limit  was  not  subject  to  the  franchise  tax.  Since  no  means 
existed  of  determining  how  far  each  passenger  travelled, 
"  the  only  way  to  approximate  a  fair  basis  of  settlement 
was  to  act  on  the  assumption  that  each  part  of  each  line 
carries  as  many  as  any  other  part."  This  theory  had  been 
applied  by  the  legislature  in  the  taxation  of  the  gross  re- 
ceipts of  railroads,  located  partly  within  and  partly  without 
Maryland.^  Accordingly  the  rule  of  apportionment  laid 
down  was  that,  that  amount  of  the  gross  receipts  of  the 
street  railway  was  liable  to  the  franchise  tax  which  stood 
in  the  same  proportion  to  the  aggregate  gross  receipts,  as 
did  the  car  mileage  of  the  railway  within  the  city  bear  to 
the  total  car  mileage." 

Unfortunate  enough  in  itself,  the  decision  led  to  far 
more  serious  consequences.  In  1888  a  large  belt  of  subur- 
ban territory  was  annexed  to  the  corporate  limits,  subject  to 
the  provision  that  property  there  located  should  not  be  sub- 
ject to  additional  local  taxation  until  1900.^  The  introduc- 
tion of  rapid  transit  a  few  years  later  led  to  a  general  ex- 
tension of  the  street  railways  into  the  annexed  territory,  for 
the  most  part  over  private  property  or  turnpike  roads  ac- 
quired by  the  railways  by  purchase  or  condemnation.  On 
that  proportion  of  gross  receipts  credited  to  the  "  Annex," 
in  accordance  with  the  rule  of  apportionment  before  laid 

^  Public  General  Laws,  Art.  81,  sect.  153  (vol.  II,  p.  1264).  The 
rule  was  pronounced  "  fair  and  reasonable  "  by  the  Maryland  Court 
of  Appeals  (45  Md.  384),  and  was  approved  by  the  United  States 
Supreme  Court  (92  U.  S.  608-611;  125  U.  S.  S30-552). 

^  Baltimore  Union  Passenger  Railway  Company  vs.  Mayor  and 
City  Council  of  Baltimore,  71  Md.  405.  The  circumstance  that  cer- 
tain tracks  were  employed  in  common  by  several  lines  of  the  same 
company  suggested  the  use  of  car  mileage  instead  of  track  mileage 
in  the  apportionment  of  the  gross  receipts. 

*  Cf.  above,  p.  266. 


THE    FINANCES    OF    BALTIMORE    CITY,    1857-1897       283 

down,  the  street  railways  refused  to  pay  the  franchise  tax. 
This  action  was  based  on  the  grounds  (i)  that  the  annexa- 
tion act  offered  exemption  from  additional  local  taxation, 
and  (2)  that  in  any  event  the  franchise  tax  could  not  be 
imposed  upon  the  receipts  from  travel  over  private  prop- 
erty. 

The  Court  of  Appeals  in  1896  explicitly  accepted  the 
narrow  interpretation  intimated  in  the  earlier  decision,  and 
defined  the  nine  per  cent,  tax  as  "  a  franchise  tax  exacted 
in  exchange  for  the  privilege  given  to  the  companies  to 
run  their  cars  upon  streets  subject  to  the  control  of  the 
city."  Accordingly,  gross  receipts  accruing  from  tracks 
upon  property  acquired  by  the  railways  without  municipal 
grant  or  concession  were  exempted  from  the  franchise  tax.^ 
As  to  the  liability  of  the  street  railways  for  the  franchise 
tax  upon  receipts  accruing  from  the  use  of  public  high- 
ways in  the  "  Annex,"  the  court  made  no  ruling. 

The  limitation  of  the  franchise  tax  to  the  proceeds  of 
travel  over  the  city's  streets,  and  the  apportionment  of  gross 
receipts  according  to  car  mileage  combined  to  make  serious 
inroads  upon  the  municipal  income  from  this  source.  The 
practice  of  the  street  railways  in  making  return  only  of 
the  amount  and  not  of  the  proportion  of  the  gross  re- 
ceipts liable  to  the  franchise  tax  renders  it  impossible  to 
determine  the  full  effect  to  which  the  city  has  suffered.*  It 
is  probable  that  since  1890  an  increasing  proportion  of 
gross  receipts  have  escaped  the  franchise  tax,  and  that  the 
premium  thus  put  upon  otherwise  unprofitable  suburban 
extension  will  effect  further  reductions  in  the  taxable  pro- 
portion. 

Wire  Conduits.  In  1889  the  local  telephone  company 
secured  from  the  city  an  important  franchise  to  construct  a 

"■  "  The  Park  Tax  Case,"  84  Md.  i. 

*  The  city  might  properly  exercise  the  authority  conferred  by  the 
legislature  in  1894  to  examine  the  accounts  of  the  street  railways 
(Acts  of  Assembly,  ch.  550),  and  require,  instead  of  the  bare  state- 
ment now  made,  full  details  of  gross  receipts,  aggregate  car  mileage, 
proportion  liable  to  taxation,  etc. 


284  THE   FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

system  of  underground  conduits  for  the  reception  of  wires 
used  in  connection  with  a  new  telephone  exchange.  The 
preamble  of  the  ordinance  conferring  the  franchise  empha- 
sized the  altruistic  impulse  of  the  corporation  in  desiring  to 
reduce  the  concentration  of  overhead  wires.  Nothing  was 
said  of  the  economies  attending  a  sub-way,  as  compared 
with  an  overhead  system,  nor  of  the  incidental  escape  from 
the  license  tax  on  poles.^  Some  appreciation  of  these  latter 
considerations,  as  well  as  of  the  public  nuisance  involved 
in  tearing  up  the  streets  of  the  city  for  the  construction  of 
the  conduits,  induced  the  municipal  administration  to  con- 
fer the  grant  subject  to  a  franchise  tax,  inadequate  in 
amount  but  none  the  less  significant  as  the  first  effort  since 
Mayor  Swann's  time  to  secure  some  direct  return  for  the 
franchise  privileges  enjoyed  by  local  industries  of  service. 
The  telephone  company  was  required  to  pay  annually  to 
the  city  thirty  cents  for  each  lineal  yard  of  the  first  four 
miles  in  aggregate  length  of  wire  conduits  constructed 
under  the  franchise,  and  twenty  cents  per  lineal  yard  for 
each  succeeding  mile  or  fraction  of  a  mile;  the  aggregate 
tax  was  however  fixed  at  a  minimum  of  $3000  per  annum. 
The  company  was  also  required  to  provide  space,  free  of 
cost  or  rent,  in  every  underground  conduit  for  a  cable,  to 
be  laid  by  the  Board  of  Fire  Commissioners,  for  the  ex- 
clusive and  official  use  of  the  municipal  police  patrol  and 
fire  alarm  telegraph  wires.'  The  plan,  location  and  con- 
struction of  the  conduits  was  subject  to  the  approval  and 
superintendence  of  the  City  Commissioner.'  Between  1889 
and  1897  thirteen  miles  of  conduits  were  constructed  in  the 
streets  of  the  city  under  this  grant,  and  the  franchise  tax 
regularly  imposed  thereupon.* 

In  the  light  of  the  subsequent  policy  of  municipal  con- 
struction of  wire  conduits,  the  grant  of  this  independent 

^  See  above,  p.  275.  ^  See  below,  p.  297. 

*  Ordinance  of  May  9,  1889,  No.  41. 

*The  receipts  from  the  tax  was  as  follows:  1889,  $1,500;  1890, 
$1,500;  1891,  $4,15050;  1892,  $6,953.10;  1893,  $4,635.80;  1894,  $4,635.80; 
1895,  $4,635-80;  1896,  $4,635.80. 


THE   FINANCES   OF  BALTIMORE   CITY,    1857-I897      285 

franchise  was  short-sighted  and  unfortunate/  The  charge 
was  moreover  hardly  more  than  nominal  and  certainly  not 
an  adequate  return  for  the  privileges  conferred.  The  real 
significance  of  the  measure  was  the  assertion  of  the  prin- 
ciple of  public  compensation  for  public  franchises,  and  of 
the  advisability  of  conferring  franchises  subject  to  an  an- 
nual tax  rather  than  of  selling  them  for  a  definite  amount. 

Special  Assessments. 

The  special  assessment,  although  an  appreciable  source 
of  municipal  revenue  in  the  period  from  1857  to  1897,  was 
of  relatively  less  importance  than  in  the  earlier  history  of 
the  city.  It  continued  to  be  levied  primarily  in  aid  of  the 
cost  of  street  paving  and  repaving,  and  of  street  reconstruc- 
tion; but  an  increasing  proportion  of  the  cost  of  such  im- 
provements was  defrayed  by  direct  municipal  appropria- 
tion. The  acquisition  of  a  municipal  water  plant  rendered 
unnecessary  the  further  provision  of  public  pumps  and 
wells,  and  the  new  and  important  occasion  for  the  use  of 
the  special  assessment,  offered  by  the  construction  of  storm- 
water  sewers,  was  not  embraced.  The  restricted  use  of  the 
special  assessment  was  due  not  to  any  dissatisfaction  with 
it  as  a  fiscal  device,  but  to  the  growing  burden  of  direct 
taxation  upon  real  property.  Any  attempt  to  assess  upon 
the  property  presumably  benefited  the  whole  or  a  consider- 
able part  of  the  large  expenditures  required  for  the  repaving 
and  reconstruction  of  important  thoroughfares  or  the  con- 

^  This  was  vividly  realized  in  1898  after  the  city  had  practically 
determined  to  construct  a  system  of  municipal  conduits.  While  the 
enabling  ordinance  was  awaiting  the  Mayor's  approval,  the  tele- 
phone company  secured  a  "  blanket "  permit  from  a  pliant  City 
Commissioner  and  proceeded  hurriedly  to  extend  its  own  conduits 
along  certam  of  the  most  important  streets  of  the  city.  This  high- 
handed procedure  was  aggravated  by  the  fact  that  the  size  and 
capacity  of  the  new  conduits  were  stated  to  be  far  in  excess  of  the 
actual  requirements  of  the  company.  Public  sentiment  was  aroused 
to  a  high  pitch  and  the  "  blanket "  permit  was  revoked,  with  the 
intention  of  subordinating  the  further  extension  of  the  company's 
conduits  to  the  proposed  municipal  sub-ways.     See  below,  p.  297. 


286  THE    FINANCIAL    HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

struction  of  permanent  sewers  would  have  probably  delayed 
the  improvements;  or  if  successful,  it  would  have  involved 
the  practical  confiscation  of  much  of  the  property  involved. 

Street  Paving  and  Repaying.  For  some  years  no  change 
whatever  was  made  in  the  form  of  the  special  assessment 
levied  for  street  paving  and  repaving.  Upon  the  applica- 
tion of  the  owners  of  a  major  part  of  the  ground  bordering 
upon  any  unpaved  street  or  upon  the  passage  of  a  special 
enabling  ordinance,  the  City  Commissioner  gave  public  no- 
tice of  a  designated  day  for  determining  upon  the  petition. 
If  the  decision  was  favorable,  proposals  for  the  work  were 
invited  and  a  contract  awarded.  The  total  cost  of  the  im- 
provement, including  expenses  of  collection  but  omitting 
the  cost  of  paving  cross-streets  and  sidewalks,  was  assessed 
upon  the  owners  of  abutting  property,  in  proportion  to 
frontage.  The  amount  so  assessed  constituted  a  lien  upon 
the  property  for  the  benfit  of  the  contractor,  and  a  clause 
was  inserted  in  all  contracts  releasing  the  city  from  respon- 
sibility for  the  expenditure  involved.  The  assessments 
were  collected  by  the  City  Collector,  paid  over  to  the  Regis- 
ter, and  thence  transferred  to  the  contractor  upon  the  war- 
rant of  the  City  Commissioner.  Delinquents  were  sued  by 
the  Collector  upon  the  petition  and  in  behalf  of  the  con- 
tractor, in  the  name  of  the  Mayor  and  City  Council  of 
Baltimore.* 

In  1870  modifications  of  some  importance  were  intro- 
duced. A  right  of  appeal  from  the  awards  of  the  City  Com- 
missioner to  the  Baltimore  City  Court  was  conferred.* 
Streets  in  process  of  reconstruction  were  exempted  from  the 
provision  requiring  the  assent  of  the  owners  of  a  major  part 
of  abutting  property  as  a  preliminary  requisite  for  the  levy 
of  a  special  assessment  for  paving  and  repaving."  The  City 
Collector  was  required  to  enforce  the  collection  of  assess- 
ments upon  his  own  initiative,  but  the  city  still  declined 

*  Revised  Ordinances  of  1858,  No.  13;  Baltimore  City  Code,  1869, 
Art.  43. 

^  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1870,  ch.  322. 

*  Ibid.,  1870,  ch.  282;  Ordinance  of  June  3,  1870,  No.  74. 


THE    FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    1857-1897       287 

responsibility  for  any  part  of  the  contract  expenditure. 
Four  years  later  this  doubtful  practise  was  discontinued 
and  the  modern  procedure  introduced  of  treating  the  cost  of 
paving  as  a  direct  municipal  liability  and  the  special  assess- 
ment as  a  form  of  compulsory  municipal  revenue.^  In 
actual  practise  the  number  of  unpaved  streets  was  reduced 
so  rapidly  with  the  growth  of  residential  areas  that  the  levy 
of  the  special  assessment  for  initial  paving  was  limited 
largely  to  that  made  necessary  by  street  reconstruction. 

In  the  case  of  repaving  identically  the  same  procedure 
was  prescribed  as  in  the  case  of  paving,  except  that  one- 
third  of  the  aggregate  cost  was  defrayed  by  the  city.^  The 
general  replacement  of  cobblestones  with  modern  pave- 
ments began  in  1880  and  the  large  expenditures  required 
for  this  purpose  were  defrayed,  as  already  described,  en- 
tirely by  the  city  from  out  the  proceeds  of  funded  loans,  in- 
stead of  by  the  city  and  the  benefited  property  owners, 
jointly.* 

Street  Reconstruction.  For  some  years  the  special  assess- 
ment to  defray  the  cost  of  street  reconstruction  was  levied 
in  the  manner  defined  in  1841.  The  transfer  of  the  func- 
tions of  the  Commissioners  for  Opening  Streets  to  the  Ap- 
peal Tax  Court  in  1861  involved  no  essential  change  in 
procedure.  But  the  revival  of  the  former  board  in  1866 
was  accompanied  by  important  modification.     Theretofore 

^ "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1874,  ch.  218;  Ordinance  of  June  4,  1874, 
No.  44. 

^  Ordinance  of  June  4,  1874,  No.  44. 

'  Cf.  above,  page  212.  The  city  suffered  serious  loss  from  time 
to  time  because  of  the  defective  wording  of  paving  ordinances. 
Thus  by  the  decision  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  in  the  "  Light  Street 
Paving  Case  "  (Burns  vs.  Mayor,  48  Md.  198),  the  cost  of  a  number 
of  improvements  for  which  a  special  assessment  might  prop- 
erly have  been  levied  was  thrown  upon  the  municipal  treasury,  be- 
cause the  ordinances  referred  to  the  improvements  as  required  by 
"  public  convenience "  (cf.  Report  of  City  Solicitor,  January  I, 
1879).  In  1885  a  preliminary  opinion  as  to  the  validity  of  any  pav- 
ing or  repaving  ordinance  was  required  of  the  law  officers  of  the 
city  before  the  improvement  could  be  actually  undertaken  (Ordi- 
nance of  April  17,  1885,  No.  27). 


288  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

the  practise  had  prevailed  of  assessing  the  entire  cost  of  the 
improvement,  including  the  aggregate  damages  awarded, 
upon  the  property  benefited — regardless  of  the  fact  whether 
or  not  the  cost  so  assessed  exceeded  the  benefit  actually 
derived.  In  1866  the  modern  principle  was  recognized  of 
levying  the  assessment  only  to  the  amount  of  the  accruing 
benefit,  and  of  defraying  the  balance  from  out  the  general 
treasury/  As  long  as  it  was  necessary  to  provide  the 
amount  "  assessed  against  the  city  "  from  out  of  current  mu- 
nicipal revenues,  care  was  taken  to  assess  property  owners 
to  the  full  amount  of  the  benefit  conferred  and  the  major 
cost  of  the  improvement  was  defrayed  by  the  special  assess- 
ment so  levied.  With  the  use  of  funded  loans  instead  of 
current  revenues  for  this  purpose,  the  municipality  assumed 
a  more  generous  attitude  and  the  relative  importance  of  the 
contributions  of  city  and  property  owners  was  reversed.^ 

Sewers.  The  provision  made  in  1868  for  the  construc- 
tion of  a  system  of  storm-water  sewers  or  drains  involved 
the  levy  of  a  special  assessment  in  part  payment  of  the  cost 
thereof.  Whenever  directed  by  municipal  ordinance  to 
construct  or  extend  any  sewer,  the  Commissioners  for 
Opening  Streets  and  the  City  Commissioner,  acting  as  a 
single  board,  met  after  due  public  notice  for  the  determina- 
tion of  damages  and  benefits.  The  special  assessment  was 
levied  upon  "  all  the  ground  and  improvements  within  and 
adjacent  to  the  city,  the  owners  of  which,  as  such,  the  said 
commissioners  shall  decide  and  deem  to  be  directly  bene- 
fited by  accomplishing  the  object  authorized."  The  rule 
of  apportionment  was  to  be  "  as  far  as  practicable  .  .  .  the 
number  of  superficial  feet  drained."  In  the  event  of  the 
aggregate  benefits  assessed  not  equalling  the  damages 
awarded  and  the  expenses  incurred,  the  balance  was  to  be 
paid  by  the  City  Register  from  out  the  municipal  treasury. 

*  Cf.  Rosewater,  "  Special  Assessments,"  p.  96. 

^  See  above,  page  219.  For  details  of  procedure  in  the  levy  of 
the  special  assessment  for  street  reconstruction  and  for  the  decisions 
of  the  Maryland  courts  in  reference  thereto,  see  Poe,  "  Pleading  and 
Practice,"  II.,  799. 


THE   FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    1857-I897       289 

The  valuations  of  the  commissioners  were  published  and 
were  subject  to  correction;  final  right  of  appeal  lay  to  the 
Baltimore  City  Court.  The  assessed  benefits  constituted  a 
lien  upon  the  property  and  were  collected  by  the  City  Col- 
lector in  the  manner  of  other  city  taxes/ 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  few  storm-water  sewers  were  con- 
structed before  1881  and  those  for  the  most  part  of  a  primi- 
tive character.  The  cost  of  the  important  sewers  built 
after  the  introduction  of  the  Gunpowder  Water  Supply  in 
1881,  was  defrayed  by  the  issue  of  funded  loans  and  not  by 
the  levy  of  a  special  assessment.* 

Fees. 

As  a  source  of  municipal  revenue,  fees  were  of  trivial 
importance  in  the  later  history  of  the  city.  A  rigidly  pre- 
cise classification  would  probably  include  under  this  cate- 
gory a  portion  of  the  revenue  derived  from  the  issue  of 
"  permits,."  Conforming  to  local  usage,  receipts  of  this 
character  have  been  treated  under  the  head  of  license  taxes. 
The  nominal  charge  for  text-books  in  the  public  schools 
of  the  city  yielded  an  appreciable  income;  but  this  ceased 
in  great  part  in  1884  when  the  schools  were  made  entirely 
free  to  residents  of  Baltimore,  A  small  revenue  continued 
to  accrue  from  the  attendance  of  non-resident  pupils. 

Quarantine  attendance,  the  maintenance  of  delinquents 
and  dependents  chargeable  to  the  counties  and  to  the  fed- 
eral government,  the  residence  of  medical  students  in  the 
city  almshouse,  the  trial  of  cases  removed  from  the  counties 
to  the  city  courts,  the  inspection  of  gas  meters,  the  issue  of 
health  certificates  and  the  fixture  of  the  city  seal  yielded 
slight  revenues  which  may  properly  be  described  as  fees.' 

*"Laws  of  Maryland,"  1868,  ch.  i;  Ordinance  of  May  7,  1868, 
No.  55.  *  Cf.  above,  p.  216. 

•The  five  Inspectors  of  Weights  and  Measures  and  the  single 
Inspector  of  Long  and  Dry  Measures  were  remnants  of  the  old 
body  of  inspection  officers,  whose  services  were  paid  by  fees  and 
correspondingly  unsatisfactory. 


290  the  financial  history  of  baltimore 

Fines. 

Receipts  from  fines,  penalties  and  forfeitures  formed  an 
insignificant  item  in  the  municipal  budget  during  the  entire 
period  under  consideration.  This  resulted  naturally  from 
the  state  control  of  the  local  police  force  and  from  the  in- 
corporation of  the  local  courts  with  the  state  judiciary. 
Fines,  forfeitures  and  penalties  imposed  under  the  laws  of 
the  state  were  paid  over  in  quarterly  account  to  the  Clerk 
of  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas.  If  imposed  under  the 
ordinances  of  the  corporation,  they  were  paid  similarly  to 
the  Register  for  the  benefit  of  the  city;  but  the  city  re- 
ceived only  one-half  of  the  fines  accruing  in  the  Criminal 
Court  of  Baltimore  for  the  violation  of  municipal  ordi- 
nances.* 

Quasi-Private  Receipts, 

Water  Supply.  Municipal  control  of  water  supply  in  BaU 
timore  was  from  the  outset  characterized  by  the  policy  of 
"  cost  service,"  that  is,  of  supplying  water  for  private  con- 
sumption at  the  minimum  rate  necessary  for  defraying  the 
gross  cost  of  operation,  including  interest  upon  the  funded 
water  debt.  During  certain  periods  the  revenues  of  the 
department  were  inadequate  for  this  purpose  and  the  de- 
ficit was  provided  by  municipal  appropriation  or  by  direct 
taxation.  At  other  times  receipts  were  in  excess  of  all  ex- 
penditures charged  to  the  department,  and  an  annual  sur- 
plus reverted  to  the  municipal  treasury.  This  imperfect 
adjustment  between  income  and  expenditure,  notable  in 
successive  terms  of  years,  was  due  in  large  part  to  the 
anomaly  existing  in  the  financial  administration  of  the  de- 
partment. The  Water  Board  enjoyed  virtual  independence 
in  fiscal  matters,  to  the  extent  that  all  revenues  of  the  de- 
partment were  expended  at  the  discretion  of  the  Board  for 
cost  of  operation  and  for  interest  upon  the  water  debt.  On 
the  other  hand,  water  rentals  were  fixed  by  the  City  Council 
and  were  not  always  determined  in  accordance  with  the 

*  Thus  see  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1876,  ch.  28. 


THE    FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    1857-1897      29! 

fiscal  policy  of  the  department.  In  the  main,  however,  there 
was  never  any  sustained  endeavor  to  conduct  the  water 
works  either  at  a  definite  profit  nor  at  an  actual  loss,  and 
water  rentals  approximated  the  rates  necessary  to  make 
both  ends  meet. 

The  financial  importance  of  the  water  department  may  be 
conveniently  dated  from  1857,  when  the  reorganized  Water 
Board  was  directed  to  prepare  a  schedule  of  water  rates 
with  the  consent  of  the  City  Council.  Rental  charges 
were  gathered  by  collectors  appointed  by  the  Mayor;  the 
proceeds  were  transferred  to  the  Water  Register,  appointed 
biennially  by  the  Water  Board,  and  finally  paid  over  in 
daily  settlement  to  the  City  Register.  The  distinct  fund  so 
formed  was  disbursed  upon  the  drafts  of  the  Water  Board 
for  current  expenses  of  operation  and  maintenance,  and 
for  the  interest  upon  a  part  of  the  funded  water  debt.*  For 
some  years  the  income  from  the  works  was  insufficient  to 
entirely  defray  these  charges,  and  on  January  4,  1862,  the 
accumulated  deficit  was  one  hundred  and  eight  thousand 
dollars,  which  sum  had  been  advanced  by  the  city  and  was 
charged  against  the  department.*  In  1862  the  financial 
affairs  of  the  department  underwent  important  modification. 
A  new  tariff  of  rental  charges  was  established  by  municipal 
ordinance,  and  upon  the  recommendation  of  the  Water 
Board  a  specific  water  tax,  varying  according  to  frontage 
and  designated  as  the  "  water  and  fire-plug  rate,"  was  im- 
posed on  all  buildings  within  three  hundred  feet  of  a  water 
main  even  though  water  had  not  been  introduced  on  the 
premises.  Discounts  varying  from  ten  to  four  per  cent, 
were  allowed  for  the  prompt  payment  of  all  water  rentals 
and  rates.  All  moneys  received  by  the  Water  Department 
were  kept  in  distinct  account  and  distributed  as  before,  with 
the  added  provision  that  any  remaining  surplus  should  be 
applied  annually  to  the  sinking  fund  for  the  redemption  of 

*  Ordinance  of  April  14,  1857,  No.  28. 

'  Report  of  Water  Department,  January  4,  1862. 


292  THE   FINANCIAL  HISTORY   OF  BALTIMORE 

the  water  debt/  The  specific  water  tax  remained  in  ex- 
istence until  1869.  Originally  imposed  as  a  means  of  dis- 
tributing the  cost  of  water  used  for  public  purposes,  notably 
for  fire  protection,  the  tax  was  later  defended  as  a  meas- 
ure to  compel  house  owners  to  introduce  water  service. 
During  the  entire  period  that  it  was  in  force,  the  tax  was 
the  subject  of  controversy  and  a  most  unreliable  source  of 
revenue/  Its  yield  increased  from  $13,507.82  in  1862,  to 
$22,309.01  in  1863,  to  $26,276.10  in  1864,  decHning  there- 
after to  $16,806.32  in  1866,  and  to  $14,672.54  in  1868.  In 
1869  the  Water  Board  expressed  the  opinion  that  "  an  equal 
amount  of  revenue  might  be  raised  under  the  general  levy 
in  a  way  to  avoid  every  appearance  of  injustice  to  any  par- 
ticular property  owner,"  ^  and  the  tax  was  actually  repealed 
in  that  year. 

The  net  receipts  of  the  department  steadily  increased  in 
the  decade  following  1862.  Losses  were  suffered  from  the 
administrative  laxity  of  the  Reconstruction  period,  and  cur- 
rent revenues  were  diverted  in  considerable  amount  to  the 
extension  of  mains  in  the  city  and  to  the  plant  proper.  To 
prevent  the  extravagant  waste  of  water,  it  became  neces- 
sary in  1870  to  introduce  water-meters  in  large  manufac- 
turing establishments  and  to  charge  according  to  the 
amount  consumed.  But  in  1871,  in  addition  to  paying  all 
expenses  of  the  department,  the  Water  Board  assumed 
charge  of  the  interest  upon  the  entire  existing  water  debt  of 
$5,000,000,  of  which  only  $3,650,000  had  theretofore  been 
borne.  Interest  upon  the  Gunpowder  loan,  authorized  in 
1874  and  gradually  issued  thereafter,  was  at  first  paid  from 
out  the  city  treasury,  and  the  increasing  annual  surplus  of 

*"  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1862,  ch.  83;  Ordinance  of  March  27,  1862, 
No.  ID.  Buildings  assessed  for  a  sum  not  exceeding  $200  were 
exempt  from  the  water  rate  by  Ordinance  of  May  23,  1862,  No.  41. 

* "  Certain  large  property  owners  resisted  its  collection  on  the 
ground  of  the  unconstitutionality  of  the  ordinance,  and  thus  far 
no  part  of  the  tax  has  been  collected  from  these  parties  "  (Report 
of  Water  Department,  January  25,  1869,  p.  417). 

*  Ibid.,  January  25,  1869. 


THE   FINANCES   OF  BALTIMORE   CITY,    1857-1897      293 

the  water  department  from  1872  to  1878  was  devoted  to 
the  maintenance  and  improvement  of  the  existing  plant  or 
carried  forward  from  year  to  year  as  a  department  balance. 
In  1878,  aided  by  a  refunding  at  five  per  cent,  of  the  six 
per  cent.  $5,000,000  loan,  the  Water  Board  assumed  the 
interest  charge  upon  $2,000,000  of  the  new  debt.  A  year 
later  the  department  undertook  the  interest  payment  upon 
all  of  the  older  water  stock  then  outstanding  and  expressed 
the  intention  of  pursuing  the  same  course  with  regard  to 
the  remaining  portion  of  the  Gunpowder  loan,  in  advance 
of  any  return  from  the  new  supply. 

This  assumption  of  interest  payment  upon  the  aggregate 
water  debt  delayed  the  reduction  of  water  rentals  that  would 
probably  otherwise  have  taken  place  with  the  introduction 
of  the  Gunpowder  supply.^  In  1880  the  Water  Board  was 
vested  with  power  to  fix  the  charges  for  water  supplied  by 
meter  measurement  to  manufacturing  establishments.  Upon 
the  recommendation  of  Mayor  F.  C.  Latrobe,  an  appre- 
ciable reduction  was  made  in  the  existing  rates,  with  a 
view  to  encouraging  the  industrial  development  of  the 
city.*  In  1884  occurred  the  anticipated  reduction  in  gen- 
eral water  rentals.  The  revenues  of  the  department  had 
been  before  barely  adequate  for  meeting  the  aggregate 
charges  imposed  upon  it;  with  the  reduction  in  rates,  it 
became  necessary  to  supply  the  deficit  by  direct  taxation. 
A  water  levy  of  three  cents  appeared  in  the  municipal  tax 
rate  in  1884,  and  of  two  cents  in  that  from  1885  to  1894. 
Nominally  this  was  imposed  not  to  supply  any  deficit  in 
the  finances  of  the  department,  but  in  payment  for  water 
supplied  free  of  direct  charge  for  all  municipal  purposes.' 

^  Reports  of  Water  Department,  January  7,  1878;  January  i,  1879; 
January  i,  1880. 

*  Ordinance  of  May  25,  1880,  No.  117;  Mayor's  Message  of  Janu- 
ary I,  1881. 

*  Report  of  Water  Department,  January  2,  1886.  In  1878  the 
Water  Board  had  been  specifically  forbidden  to  charge  municipal 
boards  and  institutions  for  water  consumed  for  public  purposes 
(Ordinance  of  May  14,  1878,  No.  55). 


294  THE   FINANCIAL    HISTORY    OF    BALTIMORE 

A  further  reduction  of  water  rentals  in  1888  necessitated  the 
retention  of  this  tax  for  some  years  longer  than  would  other- 
wise have  been  the  case,  and  not  until  1895  was  it  finally 
discontinued.  The  favorable  turn  in  the  finances  of  the 
water  department  was  aided  by  the  redemption  in  1894  of 
$4,000,000  of  the  funded  water  debt  from  out  the  municipal 
sinking  fund  and  the  consequent  saving  of  interest  thereon 
to  the  department.  This  was  reflected  in  a  surplus  aggre- 
gating $348,840  in  1895  and  1896,  derived  from  the  opera- 
tions of  the  department  and  paid  over  to  the  Department  of 
Finance  for  the  benefit  of  the  water  sinking  fund.^  The 
fiscal  independence  of  the  Water  Board  was  emphasized  in 
1896  by  the  complete  segregation  of  the  revenues  of  the 
department  from  the  ordinary  funds  of  the  municipality.' 

An  important  element  in  the  financial  history  of  the  water 
works  was  the  provision  of  inadequate  sinking  funds  and 
the  partial  redemption  of  maturing  water  loans  from  out 
the  proceeds  of  general  municipal  taxation  instead  of  from 
out  any  funds  or  revenues  of  the  water  department.  Origi- 
nally the  surplus  receipts  of  the  department  were  expected 
to  provide  the  sinking  funds  necessary  for  the  redemption 
of  maturing  loans."  For  the  reasons  indicated  above,  no 
continuous  surplus  resulted  from  the  operations  of  the  de- 
partment, and  in  the  absence  of  any  other  provision  for  the 
amortization  of  the  water  debt,  the  redemption  of  successive 
water  loans  was  thrown  upon  the  municipal  treasury,  or 
simply  deferred  by  refunding  operations.  Sinking  fund 
levies  for  water  loans  were  included  in  the  general  tax  rate 
from  1857  to  1870  and  a  special  water  sinking  fund  was 
maintained  until  1879  in  which  year  it  was  incorporated 
with  the  general  sinking  fund  of  the  city.  The  $5,000,000 
six  per  cent.  "  water  stock  "  matured  in  1875  and  was  re- 
funded at  five  per  cent,  to  mature  in  1916.  The  sinking 
fund  levy  authorized  by  this  loan  was  neglected  until  1896, 

^ "  Report  of  Water  Department,"  January  i,  1897.     For  the  sur- 
plus of  1897,  see  below,  p.  352. 
^  Mayor's  Message  of  January  25,  1897.  *  See  above,  p.  194. 


THE    FINANCES    OF    BALTIMORE    CITY,    1857-1897       295 

in  which  year  the  levy  for  the  water  loan  of  1882  was  also 
for  the  first  time  imposed.  A  sinking  fund  levy  for  the  loan 
of  1886  was  imposed  from  the  first.  Finally  in  1894-95  the 
matured  $4,000,000  water  debt  was  redeemed  from  the  gen- 
eral sinking  fund. 

With  what  rapidity  a  municipal  debt  represented  by  a 
productive  asset,  such  as  water  works,  should  be  extin- 
guished, and  whether  provision  for  the  amortization  of  such 
a  debt  should  be  made  by  taxation  of  the  community  whose 
property  it  ultimately  becomes  or  by  a  slightly  higher 
charge  to  the  consumers  of  the  service  rendered,  are  moot 
questions  of  municipal  finance.  In  Baltimore  the  policy 
was  pursued,  more  or  less  unconsciously,  of  distant  amorti- 
zation and  direct  taxation.  In  any  consideration  of  the 
financial  status  of  the  water  department  and  of  what  really 
constitutes  "  water  at  cost,"  it  is  necessary  to  bear  in  mind 
that  to  the  extent  to  which  water  loans  were  redeemed  from 
out  sinking  funds  created  by  direct  taxation,  the  department 
was  relieved  from  paying  bare  interest  upon  the  gross  cost 
of  the  plant.  To  really  supply  water  at  cost,  the  net  reve- 
nue of  the  water  works  must  be  adequate  for  paying  in- 
terest not  only  upon  outstanding  loans,  but  upon  the  total 
amount  expended  in  construction,^ 

Wharves.  Municipal  income  from  the  wharves  and  docks 
of  the  city  remained  practically  fixed  in  amount  during  the 
entire  forty  years  under  review.  The  primary  sources  of 
revenue  were  dockage  rates  and  wharfage  charges.  The 
dockage  rates  were  imposed  per  diem  upon  all  vessels  lying 
at  any  city  wharf  or  dock,  and  varied  with  the  tonnage  of 
the  vessel.     The  wharfage  charges  were  specific  amounts 

*  The  policy  of  "  free  water,"  that  is,  of  maintaining  the  water 
department  by  general  taxation  instead  of  by  the  levy  of  water 
rentals,  was  recommended  from  time  to  time,  notably  by  Mayor 
Wm.  Pinkney  Whyte  (Mayor's  Message  of  January  23,  1882).  A 
more  common  proposition  was  the  transfer  of  the  duties  of  the 
Water  Register  to  the  City  Collector  (Cf.  "  Report  of  Baltimore 
Tax  Commission,"  1885,  p.  31). 


296  THE   FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

imposed  on  all  goods  and  merchandise  landed  upon  and 
shipped  from  any  public  wharf,  and  were  re-imposed  for 
each  succeeding  day  that  the  wares  remained  upon  the 
wharves.  Both  rates  and  charges  were  occasionally  va- 
ried; but  the  aggregate  yield  was  not  seriously  affected. 
Certain  of  the  public  wharves  were  leased  from  time  to 
time  to  private  persons  upon  terms  proposed  by  the  Mayor 
and  nominally  approved  by  the  Department  of  Finance. 
Revenue  from  this  source  was  covered  into  the  general 
treasury,  instead  of  being  devoted  to  the  sinking  fund  as 
was  the  case  with  the  income  from  ordinary  municipal  prop- 
erty. 

The  number  of  Harbor  Masters  was  increased  to  six,  an- 
nually appointed  by  the  Mayor  ^  and  serving  within  a  desig- 
nated territory.  All  charges  were  collected  by  the  Harbor 
Masters  within  their  respective  districts  and  paid  over  in 
monthly  account  to  the  Register.  The  obsolete  practise 
of  remuneration  by  fees  was  still  retained  in  the  case  of 
these  officials. 

Markets.  Municipal  growth  was  accompanied  by  the 
periodic  extension  of  market  facilities  and  the  gradual  in- 
crease of  revenue  from  this  source.  No  essential  change 
was  made  in  the  procedure  already  described.'  Upon  the 
erection  or  extension  of  a  market  house,  public  sale  was 
made  of  leasehold  interest  in  the  additional  stalls  provided. 
The  annual  charge  upon  stalls  thus  sold  as  well  as  upon 
those  leased  from  year  to  year  was  fixed  by  municipal  or- 
dinance and  varied  from  time  to  time  as  well  as  from 
market  to  market.  In  addition  to  the  rental  payment  and 
to  the  annual  license  tax,  a  nominal  per  diem  charge  was 
imposed  upon  the  occupants  of  all  market  stalls.     Market 

*  Ordinances  of  February  18,  1859,  No.  18,  and  May  5,  1877,  No. 

32. 

'The  first  five  Harbor  Masters  each  received  four  per  cent,  of 
their  total  collections;  the  sixth  Harbor  Master  received  twenty 
per  cent,  of  his  collections. 

*  See  above,  p.  171. 


THE   FINANCES   OF  BALTIMORE   CITY,    1857-1897      297 

revenues  were  collected  by  the  market  clerks,  and  paid  in 
quarterly  account  to  the  Comptroller/ 

Wire  Conduits.  A  provision  of  the  franchise  granted  the 
local  telephone  company  in  1889  to  construct  underground 
conduits  was  that  space  be  afforded  therein,  free  of  cost,  for 
the  wires  of  the  police  patrol  and  fire  alarm  telegraph  sys- 
tem of  the  city.'  To  supply  the  city  with  additional  facili- 
ties an  item  of  $225,000  for  the  construction  of  conduits  was 
included  in  the  composite  $6,000,000  loan  of  1892.  In  1893 
the  Board  of  Fire  Commissioners  and  the  Superintendent 
of  Police  and  Fire  Alarm  Telegraph  were  authorized  to 
contract  for  the  construction  of  such  sub-ways  as  were 
necessary,  together  with  the  telephone  company's  conduits, 
for  the  reception  of  the  public  wires/  In  1894  the  con- 
struction commission  was  reconstituted  and  made  to  consist 
of  the  Mayor,  the  City  Register  and  the  President  of  the 
Board  of  Fire  Commissioners,.*  A  plan  of  construction 
was  determined  upon,  and  the  necessary  contracts  awarded. 

The  multiplication  of  overhead  wires,  incident  to  the 
general  introduction  of  electricity  for  lighting  and  transit 
purposes,  resulted  in  popular  demands  for  regulative  legis- 
lation. In  1892  the  General  Assembly  authorized  the  city 
to  construct  a  series  of  municipal  conduits,  to  compel  all 
overhead  wires  to  be  placed  therein,  and  to  prescribe  proper 
rental  charges.  Three  years  later  the  municipality  pre- 
pared to  exercise  the  power  thus  conferred  by  the  creation 
of  an  Electrical  Commission,  consisting  of  the  Mayor,  the 
City  Register  and  the  President  of  the  Board  of  Fire  Com- 
missioners.    In  1896  a  special  "conduit  loan"  of  $1,000,- 

^  With  the  direct  payment  of  market  license  taxes  to  the  Comp- 
troller the  practise  developed  of  requiring  the  payment  of  the  first 
quarterly  rental  in  conjunction  with  the  issue  of  the  license.  The 
per  diem  charges  continued  to  be  collected  by  the  market  clerks, 
and  it  was  currently  believed  that  this  practise  resulted  in  appreci- 
able leakage. 

*  Cf.  above,  p.  284.  '  Ordinance  of  May  i,  1893,  No.  106. 

*  Ordinance  of  April  i6,  1894,  No.  49. 


298  THE   FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

000  was  authorized;  but  no  further  steps  were  taken  until 
after  the  close  of  the  period  here  considered.^ 

Originally  the  city  entertained  no  intention  of  using  the 
police  patrol  and  fire  alarm  telegraph  conduits  for  other 
than  public  purposes.  In  1896  a  "competing"  telephone 
company  however  secured  the  right  to  use  unoccupied  por- 
tions of  the  conduits  at  an  annual  rental  of  seven  cents  per 
linear  foot  of  duct  occupied/  and  provision  was  added  that 
surplus  space  might  be  rented  to  other  persons  or  corpora- 
tions upon  the  same  terms. 

Municipal  Property.  No  important  additions  were  made 
after  1856  to  the  productive  real  estate  belonging  to  the  city. 
By  the  removal  of  municipal  buildings,  by  discontinued  use 
for  public  purposes,  by  processes  of  street  reconstruction, 
the  city  came  from  time  to  time  into  possession  of  small 
scattered  areas  of  income-bearing  property.  These  were 
leased  for  short  periods  upon  terms  fixed  by  the  Depart- 
ment of  Finance,  and  the  accruing  income  was  devoted  to 
the  sinking  fund.  The  unintelligent  policy  was  pursued 
throughout  of  disposing  by  sale  of  such  property,  upon  the 
theory  that  the  resulting  increase  of  the  taxable  basis  more 
than  compensated  for  the  loss  of  direct  municipal  income. 
The  administration  of  whatever  productive  property  re- 
mained in  the  possession  of  the  city  was,  as  a  merely  inci- 
dental duty  of  the  Department  of  Finance,  lax  and  careless, 
and  it  is  not  improbable  that  certain  losses  were  suffered 
from  sheer  neglect  of  ownership. 

In  1876  the  General  Assembly  provided  that  the  Commis- 
sioners of  Finance,  whenever  authorized  by  city  ordinance, 
might  invest  moneys  belonging  to  the  sinking  fund  in  the 
purchase  of  annuities  or  ground  rents  reserved  out  of  lands 

^  In  1898,  after  a  long,  bitter  struggle  between  corporate  interests 
and  public  expediency,  the  policy  of  constructing  municipal  con- 
duits was  definitely  confirmed;  a  new  enabling  ordinance  was 
passed,  and  the  work  of  construction  actually  begun. 

*  Ordinance  of  July  i,  1896,  No.  no.  The  grant  was  made  sub- 
ject to  the  provision  that  the  charges  for  telephone  service  should 
never  exceed  prescribed  rates. 


THE   FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    1857-1897       299 

leased  by  the  city,  and  that  after  such  purchase  the  rents 
should  continue  to  be  paid  by  the  city  to  the  Commissioners 
of  Finance  and  applied  in  the  manner  of  other  investments 
of  the  sinking  fund/  Discretionary  power  to  exercise  this 
authority  was  conferred  upon  the  Commissioners  of  Finance 
by  municipal  ordinance  in  1881,  and  thereafter  eflforts  were 
made  by  the  Commissioners  to  counteract  in  some  measure 
the  effects  of  the  expensive  policy  of  acquiring  a  mere  lease- 
hold interest  in  property  needed  for  municipal  purposes.* 
On  December  31,  1896  the  aggregate  amount  expended  by 
the  Commissioners  of  Finance  in  the  purchase  of  ground- 
rents  was  $336,485.27  and  the  income  received  thereon 
from  the  general  municipal  treasury  in  the  fiscal  year  then 
ended  was  $19,246.12.  By  far  the  largest  part  of  this  sum 
represented  purchases  made  in  years  immediately  following 
the  passage  of  the  ordinance  of  1881. 

Of  the  city's  large  investments  in  internal  improvement 
projects,  the  subscriptions  to  the  stock  of  the  Baltimore  and 
Ohio  Railroad  Company  alone  proved  productive.  In  1856 
the  city  held  $4,550,000  B,  &  O.  stock,  of  which  $500,000 
represented  the  original  subscription,  $3,000,000  the  addi- 
tional subscription  of  1836,  and  $1,050,000  scrip  dividends. 
Upon  this  entire  amount  annual  dividends,  varying  from 
six  to  ten  per  cent.,  were  received,  and  the  proceeds  devoted 
to  paying  the  interest  upon  the  internal  improvement  debt. 
In  1864  the  city  sold  $550,000  of  the  dividend  stock,  realiz- 
ing $619,837.49;  in  1865-66  the  remaining  $500,000  brought 
$611,641.13;  in  1867  $250,000  of  the  original  holding  was 
sold  for  $319,612.88,  leaving  the  city  thereafter  in  possession 
of  $3,250,000, 

The  suspension  of  dividends  in  1888  was  the  forerunner 
of  the  disastrous  turn  in  the  affairs  of  the  Baltimore  and 
Ohio  Railroad  Company  a  few  years  later.  Thanks  to  the 
sagacious  insistence  of  a  few  far-sighted  men,  the  city  dis- 
posed at  par  of  its  $3,250,000  in  1890  and  escaped  the  sharp 

*  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1876.  ch.  167. 
'  Ordinance  of  May  17,  1881,  No.  81. 


300  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

loss  that  would  have  come  thereafter/  The  proceeds  were 
turned  into  the  general  sinking  fund  and  promptly  employed 
in  the  redemption  of  maturing  loans. 

The  experience  of  the  city  with  the  Western  Maryland 
Railroad  Company  was  very  different.  From  the  original 
extension  of  municipal  aid  in  1861,  the  city,  by  a  series  of 
subscriptions,  loans  and  guarantees — each  made  in  the  hope 
of  avoiding  the  loss  of  what  had  been  given  before — be- 
came more  and  more  seriously  involved.  As  a  result  of  this 
consistent  policy  the  aggregate  indebtedness  of  the  Com- 
pany to  the  city  on  January  i,  1897,  was  $8,099,725.27, 
secured  by  a  complicated  series  of  mortgages  and  cove- 
nants.' At  no  time  in  the  history  of  the  Western  Maryland 
Railroad  Company  was  its  relation  to  the  city  other  than 
that  of  a  debtor  in  default,  and  the  most  sanguine  prospect 
afforded  at  the  close  of  the  period  here  considered  was 
that  the  Company  would  ultimately  be  able  to  assume  all 
of  its  interest  obligations.  Thus,  the  only  return  which  the 
city  received  for  large  and  burdensome  investments  was  an 
unrecorded  dividend  of  economic  stimulus  and  industrial 

*  See  below,  p.  172.  The  net  income  of  the  city  from  its  hold- 
ings of  B.  &  O.  stock  from  1856  to  1887  was  as  follows: 

1856 $210,000  1872 $292,500 

1857 105,000  1873 128,389 

1858 1874 325,000 

1859 210,000  1875 325,000 

i860 430,500  1876 325,000 

1861 105,000  1877 422,500 

1862 268,450  1878 215,500 

1863 405,405  1879 253,662 

1864 342,517  iSiSo 292,500 

1865 300,437  1881 325,000 

1866 280,000  1882 325,000 

1867 276,052  1883 303,588 

1868 260,256  1884 325,000 

1869 260,000  1885 325,000 

1870 260,000  1886 300,000 

1871 130,000  1887 130,000 

The  city  also  received  a  trivial  income  ($2,519.16  in  1896)   from 
small  holdings  of  the  stock  of  two  turnpike  companies. 
"  Report  of  Department  of  Finance,  January  i,  1897. 


THE   FINANCES   OF  BALTIMORE   CITY,    1857-1897      3OI 

development,  due  to  the  possibility  that  the  railroad  might 
not  have  been  built  by  unaided  private  capital,  or  if  at  all, 
only  at  a  later  period.  It  is  impossible  to  estimate  this 
return  quantitatively,  or  to  determine  in  how  far  it  was 
counteracted  by  the  ill  effects  of  heavier  municipal  taxa- 
tion. Certainly  the  considerations  which  might  have  war- 
ranted the  construction  of  the  railroad  by  means  of  muni- 
cipal credit  could  not  justify  its  continued  operation  at  the 
partial  expense  of  the  city.  The  railroad  was  destined  to 
take  its  place  in  the  transportation  system  of  the  country 
and  the  hope  of  operating  it  for  any  length  of  time  "  in  the 
interest  of  the  city  "  was  fanciful  and  remote.  Consequently 
agitation  for  a  sale  of  the  city's  interest  in  the  railroad  was 
continuous.  That  this  result  was  not  actually  attained  is  a 
striking  illustration  of  the  danger  of  intimate  association  of 
public  and  private  interests  in  municipal  affairs.  Probably 
a  large  majority  of  the  citizens  of  Baltimore  have  long 
been  of  the  opinion  that  the  city  should  seize  the  first  favor- 
able opportunity  to  dispose  of  its  interest  in  the  Western 
Maryland  Railroad  Company.  Against  this  general,  and 
therefore  languid,  opinion  has  been  arrayed  a  strong  con- 
tinuous pressure  from  persons  practically  interested  in  the 
continuance  of  the  existing  state  of  affairs.  The  result  of 
such  a  conflict  has  been,  as  in  ordinary  municipal  experi- 
ence, the  sacrifice  of  public  expediency  to  private  gain.^ 

*  In  1893  a  competent  commission  was  appointed  "  to  investigate 
the  affairs  of  the  Western  Maryland  Railroad  Company  and  the 
interest  of  the  city  therein."  An  exhaustive  inquiry  was  made  with 
the  aid  of  expert  service,  and  a  noteworthy  report  submitted.  The 
ultimate  sale  of  the  city's  interest  was  therein  assumed;  but  an 
interval  of  two  years,  in  the  course  of  which  the  value  and  earning 
capacity  of  the  road  might  be  demonstrated,  was  recommended 
before  definite  measures  should  be  taken.  Attention  was  also 
called  to  the  crude  and  misleading  accounting  of  the  Western 
Maryland  Railroad  Company,  and  to  the  necessity  of  radical  changes 
for  the  protection  of  the  city's  interest.  Failing  to  effect  these, 
an  immediate  disposition  of  the  city's  interest  was  recommended. 


302  the  financial  history  of  baltimore 

Gifts  and  Subsidies. 

The  municipal  budget  included  few  forms  of  revenue 
properly  described  as  gratuitous.  An  insignificant  income 
accrued  from  intestacies  and  was  appropriated  exclusively 
to  the  support  of  the  public  schools,.  The  state  tax  on 
auction  sales  reverted  to  the  city  treasury,  to  the  maximum 
amount  of  $20,000  per  annum;  but  the  actual  receipts  were 
ordinarily  less  than  a  third  of  that  sum.  Street  beds,  open 
areas,  building  sites  continued  to  be  ceded  at  intervals  to  the 
city,  but  yielded  no  direct  income. 

In  1882  Enoch  Pratt,  a  wealthy  citizen  of  Baltimore,  pro- 
posed to  establish  a  free  circulating  library.  His  plan  in- 
volved the  construction  of  a  central  and  four  branch  build- 
ings at  a  cost  of  $300,000  together  with  an  endowment  gift 
to  the  city  of  $833,333.33  i^i  city  stock.  The  condition  at- 
tached was  that  the  city  should  create  a  perpetual  annuity  of 
$50,000  for  the  maintenance  of  the  library,  payable  to  a 
self-perpetuating  board  of  trustees  selected  in  the  first  in- 
stance by  the  donor.  The  proposition  was  accepted  by  the 
city  and  confirmed  by  popular  vote.  The  endowment  gift 
was  put  under  the  control  of  the  Department  of  Finance 
who  were  required  to  invest  the  increments  until  the  fund 
yielded  an  annual  income  of  $50,000.  In  the  interim  the 
annuity  was  paid  by  direct  taxation.  The  annual  income 
from  the  fund  amounted  in  1892  to  $50,341,  and  direct  taxa- 
tion for  the  purpose  mentioned  ceased.  Somewhat  later 
the  redemption  of  maturing  five  and  six  per  cent,  stock 
contained  in  the  fund  and  a  reinvestment  in  three  and  a  half 
per  cent,  stock  reduced  the  income  slightly  below  the 
amount  of  the  annuity  ($49,502.50),  and  necessitated  a  small 
municipal  appropriation  to  supply  the  deficiency  in  annual 
income.^ 

*  In  1888  a  bequest  of  $10,000,  of  which  the  income  was  to  be 
devoted  to  benevolent  purposes,  was  made  to  the  city  ("  Horwitz 
Benevolent  Fund  ");  in  1897  a  smaller  bequest  of  $400  was  made,  of 
which  the  interest  was  to  be  devoted  to  awarding  two  prizes  in 
public  educational  institutions  ("  Frederick  Raine  Fund  ")•  Both 
funds  are  in  the  custody  of  the  Department  of  Finance. 


THE   FINANCES   OI^  BALTIMORE   CITY,    1857-1897      303 

A  general  state  system  of  public  schools  was  established 
in  Maryland  in  1865.  A  state  tax  for  school  purposes  was 
imposed  and  the  proceeds  apportioned  among  the  counties 
and  Baltimore  City  according  to  population  of  school  age 
(between  five  and  twenty  years).  Important  changes  were 
subsequently  made  in  the  administration  and  organization 
of  the  system ;  but  the  essential  principles  of  taxation  by  the 
state  and  apportionment  among  the  local  bodies  were  re- 
tained. The  rate  of  the  state  tax  remained  practically  fixed 
and  the  varying  shares  of  the  local  bodies  resulted  from 
increase  in  the  aggregate  taxable  basis  and  changes  in 
school  population. 

The  income  accruing  to  the  "  school  fund  "  of  Baltimore 
City  from  this  source  was  large  and  increased  from  $145,- 
690.70  in  1870,  to  $193,596.48  in  1880,  to  $182,619.24  in 
1890,  to  $209,176.14  in  1896.  No  item  in  the  municipal 
budget  was,  however,  the  occasion  of  more  pronounced  dis- 
satisfaction than  this  revenue.  The  explanation  lay  in  the 
fact  that  while  Baltimore,  owing  to  greater  relative  wealth, 
contributed  more  than  one-half  of  the  proceeds  of  the  state 
school  tax,  the  share  of  the  city,  by  the  method  of  appor- 
tionment employed,  was  less  than  a  third.  In  the  six  years 
from  1885  to  1890,  the  city  contributed  $743,821.00  more 
than  it  received  and  the  annual  excess  was  about  $100,000.^ 
This  condition  of  affairs  became  more  pronounced  in  1896 
when  the  legislature  imposed  an  additional  state  tax  for  the 
supply  of  free  school  books  and  provided  that  the  proceeds 
should  be  apportioned  in  the  manner  of  the  school  levy. 

It  has  been  repeatedly  proposed  that  the  mode  of  appor- 
tioning the  state  school  taxes  should  be  so  changed  as  to 
give  the  local  bodies  the  respective  amounts  collected  there- 
from; but  there  appears  little  likelihood  of  such  a  modifi- 
cation. Viewed  in  a  larger  aspect,  it  seems  entirely  proper 
that  the  metropolis  of  the  state  should  contribute  to  some 
extent  to  the  educational  development  of  the  counties. 

*  Report  of  Board  of  Commissioners  of  Public  Schools,  January 
I,  1891. 


CHAPTER  IV 

MUNICHPAIi  INDEBTEDNESS. 

The  modern  era  of  the  municipal  debt  of  Baltimore,  with 
its  burdens  and  its  problems,  may  be  conveniently  dated 
from  the  expansion  and  reorganization  of  municipal  func- 
tions during  Mayor  Thomas  Swann's  administration  (1856- 
1858).  The  dividing  line  stands  out,  it  is  true,  with  less 
distinctness  in  the  history  of  city  indebtedness  than  in  the 
development  of  administrative  organization  and  fiscal  life. 
The  extension  of  municipal  credit  in  aid  of  works  of  in- 
ternal improvement,  which  formed  the  primary  cause  of 
municipal  indebtedness  prior  to  1856,  continued  in  some 
degree  thereafter,  and  came  to  form  in  the  relation  of  the 
city  to  the  Western  Maryland  Railroad  one  of  the  serious 
problems  of  the  later  debt.  Similarly,  the  utilization  of 
public  credit  in  large  amount  for  direct  municipal  improve- 
ments, constituting  the  characteristic  features  of  the  funded 
debt  since  1856,  really  began  with  the  purchase  of  the  plant 
of  the  Baltimore  Water  Company  in  1854,  and  was  in  a 
measure  coincident  with  the  very  inception  of  the  debt. 
But  the  uninterrupted  growth  of  funded  indebtedness,  the 
periodic  recurrence  and  funding  of  floating  indebtedness, 
the  importance  and  varying  treatment  of  the  sinking  funds, 
the  application  of  funded  loans  to  purposes  more  properly 
the  objects  of  current  municipal  expenditure — in  short  the 
significant  elements  of  recent  municipal  indebtedness  may 
be  said  with  reasonable  correctness  to  date  from  the  last 
forty  years,  and  to  distinguish  that  period  from  the  forty 
years  preceding. 

Funded  Debt.^ 

The  growth  of  the  funded  debt  since  1856,  although  thus 
separated  by  common  characteristics  from  the  period  pre- 

*  See  Appendix  G. 
(304) 


THE    FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    1857-1897       305 


ceding,  reveals  upon  examination  at  least  three  successive 
phases:  The  first,  from  1856  to  1868,  was  marked  by  a 
relatively  large  and  rapid  increase  in  aggregate  indebted- 
ness, culminating  in  1867  in  a  constitutional  limitation  upon 
the  borrowing  power  of  the  corporation;  the  second,  from 
1868  to  1888,  was  distinguished  by  the  repeated  funding  of 
floating  indebtedness  and  by  the  neglect  and  diversion  of 
the  various  sinking  funds;  the  third,  from  1888  to  1897, 
had  as  its  striking  features  the  issue  of  large  composite 
loans  for  miscellaneous  municipal  purposes,  and  the  re- 
markable decline  in  the  interest  rate  upon  municipal  securi- 
ties. The  increase  of  the  funded  debt  during  these  periods 
and  the  occasion  therefor  are  summarized  in  the  following 
table,  and  will  be  considered  in  detail: 


1857-1867. 
Water $3,090,359.65 


Defence  and  Bounties. . 
Municipal  Buildings. . . 

Parks 

Internal  Improvement, 

Floating  Debt, 

Miscellaneous 

Street  Paving 

Jones'  Falls 

Sewers 

Bridges 

School  Buildings 

Street  Reconstruction  . 

Wire  Conduits 

Topographical  Survey. 


2,784,243.61 
720,716.11 
741,320.05 

1,269,000.00 

145,000.00 

76,096.33 


Total $8,826,735.75 

Redemption 485,787.92 


1868-1888. 
$5,496,668.06 


1889-1897. 
$2,600,000.00 


Net  Increase  2 $8,340,947.83 


2,569,576.48  2,900,000.00 

400,000.00  1,250,000.00 

4,403,300.00  

5,635,500.00  1,453,300.00 

236,013.56  

500,000.00  2,600,000.00 

2,336,700.00  28,000.00 

600,000.00  2,750,000.00 

850,000.00 

800,000.00 

1,500,000.00 

1,225,000.00 

125,000.00 

$22,177,758.10  i  $18,081,300.00 

6,476,865.70  14,379,160.75 

$15,700,892.40  $3,702,139.25 


1856-1868.    The  extravagance  and  waste  which  charac- 
terized local  administration  during  much  of  the  period  from 


*  Of  this   amount,   $4,295,100  was,   on   December   31,    1897,   still 
unissued.  *  Exclusive  of  sinking  funds. 

u 


306  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

1856  to  the  close  of  the  Civil  War  were  reflected  in  the 
accumulation  of  floating,  rather  than  in  the  growth  of 
funded  indebtedness.  The  funded  debt  of  the  city  under- 
went relatively  large  increase,  rising  from  $11,996,675.90  in 
1856  to  $20,337,622.73  in  1868,  or  about  70  per  cent.  But 
of  this  increase  of  nearly  $8,500,000,  more  than  a  third  was 
incurred  in  the  extension  of  the  water  supply;  another  third 
was  expended  in  the  defence  of  the  city  and  in  the  payment 
of  bounties  to  volunteers  for  local  quotas  during  the  mili- 
tary operations  of  the  Civil  War,  while  the  acquisition  of 
Druid  Hill  Park  and  the  erection  of  various  municipal 
buildings  (Almshouse,  Jail  and  City  Hall)  were  responsible 
for  the  largest  part  of  the  remainder.  There  was  probably 
no  actual  or  deliberate  misuse  of  the  corporate  borrowing 
power.  With  the  feverish  conditions  of  the  War  and  Re- 
construction periods,  with  the  easy  processes  of  debt  con- 
traction and  with  high  municipal  credit,  municipal  indebt- 
edness threatened  to  outrun  municipal  resources.  A 
healthy  conservatism  in  this  respect  together  with  a  recol- 
lection, made  vivid  by  the  pressure  of  tax  levies,  of  the 
reckless  participation  of  Baltimore  in  the  projection  of 
works  of  internal  improvement,  led  the  Constitutional  Con- 
vention of  1867  to  impose  radical  limitation  upon  the  cor- 
porate borrowing  power. 

(Water  Loans).  The  original  provision  made  for  the 
acquisition  and  extension  of  a  municipal  water  supply  em- 
powered the  issue  of  city  stock  to  an  amount  not  exceeding 
$2,000,000.  As  has  already  been  stated,  three-fourths  of 
the  total  amount  authorized  was  issued  by  the  end  of  1856.^ 
In  1858  and  1861  further  issues  of  $1,000,000  and  $500,000, 
respectively,  were  authorized.''  In  1862  the  aggregate 
issue  of  "  Water  Stock  "  was  limited  to  $3,500,000,  and  in 
1866  this  maximum  was  changed  to  $4,500,000.'  Several 
loans  were  also  made  prior  to  the  adoption  of  the  Consti- 

^  See  above,  p.  193. 

'  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1858,  ch.  38;  1861,  ch.  20. 

'Ibid.,  1862,  ch.  83;  i866,  ch.  38. 


THE  FINANCES   OF   BALTIMORE   CITY,    1857-1897      307 

tution  of  1867,  by  virtue  of  the  power  possessed  by  the  cor- 
poration to  issue  stock  for  "  any  great  or  permanent  im- 
provement "  to  an  amount  not  exceeding  $1,000,000,  ex- 
clusive of  all  debts  authorized  by  special  acts  of  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly/ 

These  statutes  were  mere  enabling  acts,  empowering  the 
city  to  emit  certificates  of  indebtedness,  to  be  designated  as 
the  "  Baltimore  Water  Stock,"  and  "  to  provide  for  the 
redemption  of  the  same  at  times  and  under  such  provision 
as  the  Mayor  and  City  Council  may  deem  expedient  and 
proper."  A  series  of  ordinances  provided  for  the  actual 
issue  of  the  stock  as  the  work  of  construction  and  extension 
progressed.  The  water  loans  bore  interest  at  six  per  cent., 
and  were  redeemable  at  the  pleasure  of  the  corporation  after 
1875,  The  proceeds  of  the  loans  were  deposited  with  the 
City  Register,  subject  to  the  order  of  the  Water  Commis- 
sioners, and  any  premium  resulting  from  the  sale  of  the 
stock  was  transferred  to  the  sinking  fund  created  by  the 
original  act.  Between  1856  and  1868,  $3,090,359.65  of  this 
stock  was  issued,  making  the  aggregate  water  loans  out- 
standing on  December  31,  1868,  $4,631,146.38. 

(Defence  and  Bounty  Loans).  The  events  of  the  Civil 
War  left  an  enduring  impress  upon  the  municipal  debt  of 
Baltimore.  Geographical  position  exposed  the  city  to  attack 
and  occupation,  while  a  strong  local  sympathy  with  the 
South  heightened  the  difficulty  of  securing  the  city's  quotas 
for  the  successive  calls  for  troops.  Beginning  in  1862  with 
the  payment  of  a  bounty  of  $100  to  volunteers  for  three 
years  service,  it  became  necessary  in  1865  to  offer  a  cash 
bounty  of  $300  to  one  year  recruits.  Between  1856  and 
1868,  a  debt  of  $2,784,243.61  was  contracted  in  the  defence 
of  the  city  and  in  the  payment  of  bounties. 

The  first  "  defence  loan  "  was  authorized  in  April,  1861, 
when  the  legislature  empowered  the  Mayor  and  City 
Council  to  raise  whatever  funds  might  be  necessary  for  the 

*"  Baltimore  City  Code,"  1879,  p.  1137,  note.  ' 


308  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

protection  of  the  city,  and  to  provide  for  repayment  by 
taxation  or  otherwise/  The  sum  of  $500,000 — to  be  se- 
cured by  the  issue  of  promissory  notes,  and  to  be  expended 
under  the  direction  of  the  Mayor — had  already  been  appro- 
priated by  the  city  for  purposes  of  defence/  This  action 
of  the  municipaHty  was  promptly  confirmed  by  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly,  and  its  legality  was  upheld  by  the  Court  of 
Appeals.'  The  amount  actually  expended  within  the  next 
twelve  months  was  only  some  $80,000.  This  was  borrowed 
on  short  time,  and  in  April,  1862,  was  funded  in  six  per 
cent.,  twenty-year  bonds,  together  with  $145,000  of  float- 
ing indebtedness.  A  second  appropriation  of  $100,000, 
to  be  taken  from  unexpended  parts  of  the  "  bounty  loan  " 
of  June,  1863,  was  made  in  1863  for  strengthening  local 
defences.  This  sum  was  to  be  expended  by  a  Defence 
Committee  composed  of  the  Mayor,  and  the  President  and 
one  member  from  each  branch  of  the  City  Council.* 

The  various  "  bounty  loans  "  authorized  by  the  corpo- 
ration were  as  follows:  (a)  $350,000  in  August,  1862;  (b) 
$350,000  in  September,  1862;  (c)  $400,000  in  June,  1863; 
(d)  $600,000  in  February,  1864;  (e)  $400,000  in  May,  1864; 
(f)  $100,000  in  June,  1864;  (g)  $750,000  in  July,  1864; 
(h)  $750,000  in  January,  1865.' 

The  funds  provided  by  the  last  two  loans  were  admin- 
istered by  a  Bounty  Board,  composed  of  the  Comptroller 
and  two  other  citizens  appointed  by  the  Mayor.  Disburse- 
ments under  earlier  loans  were  made  by  the  City  Register 
upon  the  certificate  of  regimental  officers.  In  1862  the 
unexpended  part  of  the  $700,000  bounty  loan  issued  in  that 
year  was  appropriated  as  a  Relief  Fund  for  the  benefit  of 
the  families  of  all  local  volunteers,  and  distributed  by  a 
board   of   commissioners,   composed   of  the   Mayor,    City 

'  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1861,  ch.  i. 

^  Ordinance  of  April  20,  1861,  No.  22. 

"'Laws  of  Maryland,"  i86r,  ch.  2;  Mayor  vs.  Poultney,  25  Md. 

19- 
*  Ordinances  of  June  24  and  27,  1863,  Nos.  51  and  52. 
°  "  Baltimore  City  Code,"  1879,  Art.  XLVI,  sect.  32. 


THE   FINANCES   OF  BALTIMORE  CITY,    1857-1897      309 

Register  and  the  City  Comptroller/  Two  years  later,  the 
General  Assembly  authorized  the  city  to  raise  an  amount 
not  exceeding  $300,000  in  any  one  year  for  the  relief  of 
the  families  of  those  enlisted  or  drafted  into  the  military 
service  of  the  United  States  as  a  part  of  local  quotas/  The 
corresponding  ordinance  however  provided  for  the  issue  of 
only  $100,000,  for  the  continuation  of  relief  to  the  families 
of  soldiers  then  in  receipt  thereof. 

The  city  stock  issued  under  the  several  bounty  and  de- 
fence loans  bore  interest  at  six  per  cent.,  and  was  ordinarily 
redeemable  at  the  pleasure  of  the  city  after  thirty  years. 
Provision  was  commonly  made  for  the  accumulation  of  a 
sinking  fund  for  the  redemption  of  the  loans  at  maturity, 
but  the  details  of  this  are  more  conveniently  examined  in 
another  connection.' 

(Municipal  Buildings  Loans).  Two  important  munici- 
pal buildings,  the  Almshouse  and  the  Jail,  were  practically 
completed,  while  the  erection  of  a  third,  the  City  Hall,  was 
at  least  begun,  in  the  period  from  1856  to  1868.  The  en- 
tire expenditure  involved  was  defrayed  by  a  series  of  loans, 
resulting  in  increased  funded  indebtedness  to  the  amount  of 
$720,716.11. 

The  General  Assembly  in  1858  authorized  the  Mayor  and 
City  Council  to  issue  six  per  cent,  stock,  to  be  redeemed  in 
fifteen  years  from  date  of  issue,  to  an  amount  not  exceed- 
ing $250,000  for  the  purpose  of  discharging  the  indebted- 
ness incurred  in  the  construction  of  a  new  Jail,  and  for  de- 
fraying the  cost  of  completing  the  structure.  In  1858  and 
1859,  stock  was  gradually  issued  with  the  progress  of  the 
■work  to  the  maximum  amount  authorized.*  Three  success- 
ive issues  of  six  per  cent,  stock,  redeemable  after  1890, 
were  authorized  for  the  erection  of  the  City  Almshouse,  or 
Bay  View  Asylum:     (a)  $100,000  in  1862,  (b)  $300,000  in 

^  Ordinance  of  September  27,  1862,  No.  66. 
'  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1864,  ch.  132.  *  See  below,  p.  335. 

* "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1858,  ch.  294;  Ordinances  of  April  20, 
1858,  No.  20;  May  31,  1858,  No.  28. 


3IO  THE   FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

1865,  (c)  $50,000  in  1866/  The  indebtedness  actually  in- 
curred for  this  purpose  aggregated  $438,716.11.  Bonds  to 
the  amount  of  $32,000  were  issued  in  1867  for  the  construc- 
tion of  a  City  Hall;  but  they  formed  an  integral  part  of  the 
important  loans  described  below.' 

(Park  Loans).  The  newly-created  Public  Park  Commis- 
sion was  authorized  in  i860  to  purchase  a  suitable  site  for 
a  public  park  and  to  make  payment  therefor  in  corporate 
stock,  bearing  interest  at  six  per  cent,  and  redeemable  at 
the  end  of  thirty  years."  Under  the  terms  of  this  ordinance 
there  were  issued  during  1861  the  sum  of  $553,966.25  in 
"  public  park  stock,"  of  which  $511,323.75  was  for  the  pur- 
chase of  Druid  Hill  Park  and  $42,642.50,  of  an  addition  to 
Patterson  Park.  The  validity  of  the  issue  was  questioned 
and  the  acquisition  of  Druid  Hill  Park  was  only  accom- 
plished by  the  public-spirited  action  of  certain  citizens  who 
agreed  to  buy  definite  amounts  of  the  stock  in  order  that 
one-fourth  of  the  purchase  money  might  be  paid  in  cash. 
To  remove  every  vestige  of  doubt,  confirmatory  legislation 
was  immediately  secured  from  the  General  Assembly.*  For 
the  special  improvement  of  the  parks,  additional  stock  to 
the  amount  of  $170,000,  bearing  interest  at  six  per  cent,  and 
redeemable  in  1895  was  authorized,  of  which  $150,000  was 
appropriated  to  Druid  Hill  Park,  and  $20,000  to  Patterson 
Park.  A  reservation  of  ten  per  cent,  for  the  creation  of  a 
sinking  fund  was  made  in  each  case."  During  1864  and 
1865,  the  entire  amount  authorized  was  issued.  By  the 
close  of  1868,  the  total  amount  of  stock  issued  for  the  pur- 
chase and  improvement  of  the  parks  was  $741,320.05. 

The  park  loans,  like  the  water  loans,  were  to  a  certain 
extent  independent,  both  in  administration  and  in  security, 

^Ordinances  of  May  20,  1862,  No.  40;  June  7,  1865,  No.  35;  Feb- 
ruary 16,  1866,  No.  3. 

*  See  below,  p.  318.  *  Ordinance  of  July  21,  i860.  No.  60. 

* "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1862,  ch.  29,  repealing  ibid.,  1861,  ch.  41. 

"  Ordinance  of  May  2,  1863,  No.  37.  Cf.  also  Reports  of  Public 
Park  Commission,  December  24,  i860;  January  2,  1862. 


THE    FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    1857-1897       3II 

of  general  municipal  indebtedness.  The  franchise  charge 
on  street  railways,  the  so-called  "  park  tax,"  was  originally 
imposed  for  the  purchase  and  maintenance  of  public  parks, 
and  any  municipal  indebtedness  incurred  for  this  purpose 
was  made  chargeable  both  as  to  interest  and  ultimate  re- 
demption upon  the  proceeds  of  the  franchise  tax/ 

(Various  Loans).  The  debt  of  the  city  was  also  in- 
creased during  this  period  by  the  issue,  from  1857  to  1859, 
of  $1,069,000 — the  remaining  portion  of  the  $5,000,000  loan 
to  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  Railroad  Company;'  by  the 
funding  in  1862  of  a  floating  debt  of  $145,000  probably  in- 
curred in  emergency  preparations  at  the  outbreak  of  hostil- 
ities; by  a  subscription  in  1866-67  of  $200,000  to  the 
capital  stock  of  the  Western  Maryland  Railroad  Company,' 
and  by  the  issue  of  $76,096.33  for  miscellaneous  purposes. 

1868-1888.  The  failure  of  the  constitutional  limitation 
of  1867  to  act  as  a  formidable  check  upon  local  borrowing 
was  realized  in  the  period  from  1868  to  1888.  The  total 
funded  indebtedness  of  the  city  increased  from  $20,337,- 
622.73  in  1868  to  $36,038,516.15  in  1888.  Redemptions 
took  place  from  out  the  slowly  accumulating  sinking  funds 
to  the  amount  of  $6,476,865.70,  making  the  gross  issue  of 
municipal  securities  within  these  twenty  years,  $22,177,- 
758.10.  The  periodic  funding  of  floating  indebtedness,  the 
completion  of  a  metropolitan  water  system,  the  repeated 
extension  of  municipal  aid  to  the  Western  Maryland  Rail- 
road, the  erection  of  a  City  Hall,  and  the  improvement  of 
Jones'  Falls  were  the  constituent  elements,  enumerated  in 
order  of  importance,  of  the  increase  in  indebtedness. 

(Floating  Indebtedness  Loans.)  The  causes  of  the 
periodic  accumulation  of  floating  indebtedness  are  consid- 
ered in  detail  in  a  later  connection.*  It  is  here  only  neces- 
sary to  notice  that  upon  five  successive  occasions,  unpaid 
existing  claims  against  the  city  were  accepted  as  a  perma- 
nent deficit  and  funded  in  municipal  stock. 

^  See  above,  p.  277.  ^  See  above,  p.  192. 

'  Ordinance  of  March  15,  1866,  No.  16. 
*  See  below,  p.  326. 


312  THE   FINANCIAL  HISTORY   OF  BALTIMORE 

In  1868,  the  issue  of  $1,700,000  in  six  per  cent,  stock 
redeemable  in  1890  was  authorized  for  funding  the  then 
existing  floating  debt.^  The  entire  amount  authorized  was 
issued  within  the  year.  In  1869-70  two  similar  loans  of 
$300,000  and  $800,000,  respectively,  were  authorized,  of 
which  amounts  only  $800,200  was  actually  issued."  In 
1874  a  loan  of  $2,000,000  in  six  per  cent,  stock,  redeemable 
in  1894,  was  authorized  and  actually  issued  for  funding  the 
floating  debt  "  as  it  existed  on  October  31,  1873."  *  Finally 
in  1878,  an  issue  of  $1,500,000  in  five  per  cent,  stock,  re- 
deemable in  191 6,  was  authorized  for  funding  the  floating 
debt  of  the  city,  as  it  existed  on  December  31,  1877;  of 
this  loan,  $1,035,300  was  issued.*  It  thus  appears  that  of 
loans  authorized  to  the  amount  of  $6,300,00,  the  sum  of 
$5,635,500  was  actually  issued,  and  that  this  entire  indebt- 
edness was  contracted  within  a  single  decade. 

(Water  Loans).  In  1868  the  city  effected  a  temporary 
loan  on  behalf  of  the  Board  of  Water  Commissioners  to 
the  amount  of  $175,000  for  the  completion  of  a  High  Ser- 
vice Reservoir  in  Druid  Hill  Park."  The  loan  was  repaid 
and  additional  funds  provided  by  the  issue  in  1870  of  $368,- 
854.62  of  Water  Stock,  thus  increasing  the  aggregate 
amount  then  outstanding  to  precisely  $5,000,000,  all  bear- 
ing interest  at  six  per  cent,  and  redeemable  in  1875."  In 
1877  this  $5,000,000  was  refunded  in  five  per  cent,  stock 
redeemable  in  1916.^     The  project  of  securing  a  permanent 

^  Ordinance  of  February  7,  1868,  No.  i. 

^ "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1870,  ch.  143;  Ordinances  of  November 
13,  1869  (No.  3),  and  January  31,  1870  (No.  14).  The  $300,000  loan 
was  for  the  purpose  of  funding  the  floating  debt  of  the  city  as  it 
existed  at  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  of  1867. 

'"Laws  of  Maryland,"  1874,  ch.  185;  Ordinance  of  February  12, 
1874,  No.  6.  Of  this  debt  $900,000  had  been  incurred  in  the  exten- 
sion of  the  water  supply,  and  $400,000  in  the  improvement  of  the 
ship  channel. 

* "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1878,  ch.  328;  Ordinance  of  October  8, 
1878,  No.  93. 

*  Resolution  of  November  7,  1868,  No.  467. 

•  Ordinance  of  April  15,  1870,  No.  32. 

'' "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1876,  ch.  237;  Ordinance  of  June  30,  1877, 
No.  65. 


THE   FINANCES   OF  BALTIMORE   CITY,    1857-1897      313 

supply  of  water  from  the  Gunpowder  River  was  definitely 
undertaken  by  the  city  in  1874,  and  the  issue  of  an  addi- 
tional loan  of  $4,000,000  was  then  authorized.  Between 
1875  and  1880  the  entire  amount  was  issued  in  six  per  cent, 
bonds,  redeemable  after  July  i,  1894.'  A  loan  of  $500,000 
in  five  per  cent,  bonds  redeemable  after  1922  was  made  in 
1883  for  the  construction  of  Lake  Clifton,''  and  in  1886  a 
further  loan  of  $1,000,000  in  four  per  cent,  bonds  redeem- 
able in  1926  was  authorized  for  the  completion  of  the  same 
work.*  Of  this  latter  loan,  only  $400,000  was  issued  during 
1888, 

(Internal  Improvement  Loans).  The  same  municipal 
policy  of  substantial  aid  to  works  of  internal  improvement, 
identified  with  the  early  growth  of  the  funded  debt  of  Balti- 
more, was  responsible  for  an  important  addition  thereto  in 
the  period  from  1868  to  1888.  It  took  the  form  of  success- 
ive loans  to  the  Western  Maryland  Railroad  Company  to 
the  amount  of  $3,388,000* — virtually  making  possible  the 
completion  of  the  road,  and  leaving  the  city  at  the  close  of 
the  period  here  considered  its  practical  owner.  In  addition 
the  municipality  subscribed  for  $1,000,000  of  the  capital 
stock  of  the  Valley  Railroad  Company  of  Virginia  and 
issued  corporate  stock  to  that  amount. 

The  early  financial  relations  of  the  municipality  and  the 
Western  Maryland  Railroad  are  associated  with  the  devel- 
opment of  the  "  guaranteed  debt "  of  the  city,  and  are  dis- 
cussed in  another  connection."     In  1869  to  avert  the  im- 

* "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1874,  ch.  209;  Ordinance  of  February 
12,  1874,  No.  5. 

*  Ordinance  of  May  25,  1882,  No.  91.  The  entire  loan  was  taken 
by  the  Department  of  Finance  for  the  "  Enoch  Pratt  Free  Library 
Sinking  Fund  " ;  see  Ordinance  of  May  14,  1883,  No.  64. 

*  Ordinance  of  June  3,  1886,  No.  82. 

*  $500,000  of  this  amount  represented  the  conversion  of  guar- 
anteed into  funded  indebtedness. 

*  See  below,  page  321.  For  the  entire  history  of  the  Western 
Maryland  Railroad  Company,  see  "  Report  of  the  Commission  to 
investigate  the  affairs  of  the  Western  Maryland  Railroad  Com- 
pany and  the  interest  of  the  City  therein  "  (1893). 


314  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

pending  financial  embarrassment  of  the  railroad,  the  city- 
undertook  to  raise  one  million  dollars,  for  investment  in  its 
unsold  bonds.  The  plan  proposed  was  to  hypothecate  a 
sufficient  amount  of  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  stock  held  by 
the  city,  until  consent  should  have  been  secured  from  the 
General  Assembly  of  Maryland  for  a  municipal  endorse- 
ment of  Western  Maryland  bonds  of  equivalent  amount." 
The  proposed  procedure  was  stopped  by  legal  injunction; 
and  it  became  necessary  to  seek  enabling  legislation.  This 
was  promptly  obtained  in  1870,  and  the  city  was  author- 
ized to  guarantee  additional  bonds  of  the  railroad  to  an 
amount  not  exceeding  $1,400,000,  secured  by  a  third  mort- 
gage." Difficulty  was  experienced  in  the  sale  of  these 
"  guaranteed  third  mortgage  bonds,"  while  it  appeared  that 
the  proceeds  would  in  any  event  be  insufficient  for  the  com- 
pletion and  equipment  of  the  road  from  Baltimore  to  Wil- 
liamsport.  Accordingly  in  1872,  upon  the  surrender  by 
the  railroad  of  endorsed  but  unsold  bonds  to  the  amount  of 
$275,000  and  the  release  to  the  city  of  all  rights  in  an  addi- 
tional $250,000  endorsed  but  not  yet  issued,  the  city  agreed 
to  loan  to  the  railroad  $1,000,000  in  six  per  cent,  bonds, 
secured  by  an  obligation  of  the  railroad  to  pay  the  interest 
and  principal  of  the  stock  as  it  should  fall  due."  This  in- 
strument was  known  as  the  fourth  mortgage,  and  the 
six  per  cent,  bonds  secured  by  it,  as  the  "  fourth  mortgage 
bonds."*  As  a  result  of  the  transaction,  the  "third  mort- 
gage guaranteed  bonds "  were  reduced  to  $875,000,  and 
"fourth  mortgage  bonds  "•  to  the  amount  of  $1,000,000 
were  issued.     At  the  close  of  1873  the  Western  Maryland 

^  Ordinance  No.  42  of  June  12,  1869. 

*"Laws  of  Maryland,"  1870,  ch.  48;  Ordinance  of  January  21, 
1870,  No.  II. 

'  Ordinance  of  January  17,  1872,  No.  10. 

*  This  obligation  is  a  somewhat  curious  instrument  in  the  nature 
of  a  mortgage,  dated  and  recorded  but  not  duly  acknowledged, 
in  which  all  the  property,  owned  or  to  be  owned  by  the  railroad, 
was  pledged  to  the  city  to  secure  the  payment  of  the  interest  and 
principal  of  the  stock  mentioned. 


THE   FINANCES   OF   BALTIMORE   CITY,    1857-1897      315 

Railroad  was  formally  opened  from  Fulton  Station,  Balti- 
more, to  Williamsport. 

From  1875  to  1882,  the  railroad  was  enabled  to  provide 
terminal  facilities,  and  to  avert  threatened  danger  from  cer- 
tain of  its  defaulted  securities  by  the  exploitation  of  the 
municipal  sinking  fund.  This  mischievous  policy,  however, 
involved  no  direct  increase  in  funded  indebtedness  and  is 
considered  in  detail  elsewhere/  By  1882  the  need  for  im- 
proved and  additional  equipment  had  once  more  become  im- 
perative, and  recourse  was  again  had  to  municipal  aid. 
Generous  response  was  made  in  a  loan,  authorized  in  1882, 
of  $684,000  of  city  stock,  bearing  four  per  cent,  interest 
and  redeemable  in  July,  1925.  Between  1882  and  1886  the 
entire  amount  so  authorized  was  issued  in  specific  install- 
ments.* The  loan  was  secured  by  "  a  memorandum  in 
writing,  signed  by  its  president,  and  sealed  with  its  corpo- 
rate seal,  accepting  the  terms  of  this  ordinance  " ;  with  the 
further  provision  that  such  acceptance  should  import  an 
obligation  on  the  part  of  the  Company  and  bind  it  to  pay 
interest  and  principal  of  the  municipal  loan  as  it  should  fall 
due. 

The  final  and  most  important  extension  of  municipal  aid 
to  the  Western  Maryland  Railroad,  within  the  period  here 
considered,  occurred  in  1886.'  The  railroad  had  then  out- 
standing $1,800,000  of  its  own  bonds,  redeemable  at  pleas- 
ure, but  under  liens  secured  by  mortgages  of  prior  date 
to  the  third  and  fourth  mortgages  securing  the  city's  inter- 
ests. There  were,  however,  large  and  increasing  accumu- 
lations of  unpaid  interest  coupons  of  such  of  these  prior 
bonds  as  were  not  guaranteed  by  Baltimore  City  and  by 
the  Commissioners  of  Washington  County.  Upon  repre- 
sentation that  its  own  holdings  were  threatened  by  the 
railroad's  default,  the  city  was  induced  to  authorize  a  new 
municipal  loan  to  the  amount  of  $1,800,000,  bearing  inter- 
est at  three  and  one-half  per  cent.,  and  redeemable  at  the  end 

^  See  below,  p.  339.  *  Ordinance  of  May  10,  1882,  No.  71. 

•Ordinance  of  March  10,  1886,  No.  11. 


3l6  THE   FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

of  forty  years,  for  funding  these  various  obligations.  Dur- 
ing 1887  $1,704,000  of  such  bonds  were  issued.  Out  of 
this  amount  the  city  retained  $100,000  as  a  sinking  fund. 
The  residue  of  $1,604,000,  together  with  $294,320.25  real- 
ized from  the  sale  of  securities  in  the  Western  Maryland 
sinking  funds,  and  $55.75  in  cash  then  drawn  from  the 
treasury  of  the  Western  Maryland  Railroad  Company,  or 
$1,898,376  in  all,  was  used  for  the  cancellation  and  retire- 
ment of  the  following  of  the  railroad's  securities:^ 

First  Mortgage  Unendorsed  Bonds $400,000 

First  Mortgage  Endorsed  Bonds 156,500 

Second  Mortgage  Endorsed   (by  Wash- 
ington County)  Bonds 300,000 

Second  Mortgage  Endorsed  Bonds 300,000 

Preferred  Second  Mortgage  Bonds 421,500 

Funded  Coupon  Certificates  (held  by  the 
public)    320,376 

Total $1,898,376 

As  a  result  of  these  complicated  transactions,  the  aggre- 
gate indebtedness  incurred  by  the  city  in  aid  of  the  West- 
ern Maryland  Railroad  Company,  between  1868  and  1888, 
was  $3,388,000 — exclusive  of  an  increase  in  guaranteed 
debt,  for  this  purpose  of  $275,000. 

One  of  the  most  remarkable  incidents  in  the  history  of 
municipal  aid  to  works  of  internal  improvement  was  a  sub- 
scription of  $1,000,000  to  the  capital  stock  of  the  Valley 
Railroad  Company  of  Virginia  made  by  Baltimore  in  1872. 
The  project  involved  the  construction  of  a  railroad,  entirely 
within  the  state  of  Virginia,  extending  from  Harrisonburg 
in  Rockingham  County  to  a  point  at  or  near  Salem  in  Roa- 
noke County,  on  the  line  of  the  Virginia  and  Tennessee 
Railroad.    The  road  from  Harrisonburg  to  Harper's  Ferry, 

^ "  Report  of  Stephen  Little  on  the  Financial  Condition  of  the 
Western  Maryland  Railroad  Company,"  p.  28.  Also  Report  of  City 
Register,  January  3,  1887. 


THE   FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    1857-1897       317 

on  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  Railroad,  being  already  com- 
pleted, it  was  expected  that  the  proposed  one  hundred  and 
thirteen  miles  of  new  road  through  the  Virginia  counties 
would  connect  Baltimore  "  by  the  most  direct  and  favor- 
able route,  with  the  cotton  and  sugar-growing  states,  and 
[would]  materially  aid  in  securing  an  important  share  of 
the  traffic  of  those  sections,  in  addition  to  that  to  be  ob- 
tained by  a  connection  with  the  most  fertile  regions  of  Vir- 
ginia, North  Carolina  and  Tennessee,  via  Staunton  and 
Salem,  as  well  as  via  Lynchburg."  ^ 

Lured  by  this  roseate  vista,  the  municipality  in  Septem- 
ber, 1869,  authorized  a  direct  subscription  of  $1,000,000  to 
the  capital  stock  of  the  Valley  Railroad  Company,  to  be 
paid  by  the  issue  of  six  per  cent,  fifteen-year  bonds,  sub- 
ject to  the  following  conditions:  (i)  that  the  subscription 
should  be  confirmed  by  act  of  the  General  Assembly  and 
by  popular  vote;  (2)  that  the  further  sum  of  $2,200,000 
should  be  subscribed  by  individuals  and  by  the  counties  and 
towns  of  the  Virginia  Valley;  (3)  that  of  this  $2,200,000,  at 
least  ^$1,000,000  should  be  subscribed  by  the  Virginia 
counties  and  towns,  or  by  corporations  or  persons  resident 
therein;  (4)  that  at  least  thirty  per  cent,  of  all  subscriptions, 
other  than  those  of  the  Virginia  counties,  should  be  actually 
paid  in  cash;  (5)  that  the  Commissioners  of  Finance  of 
Baltimore  should  be  satisfied  that  the  Valley  Railroad  Com- 
pany was  in  possession  of  sufficient  funds  to  construct  the 
entire  line  proposed.* 

The  contemplated  loan  was  confirmed  by  legislative 
statute  and  by  popular  vote  in  1870-71,  and  the  Commis- 
sioners of  Finance  being  satisfied  that  the  other  conditions 
had  been  complied  with,  the  formal  subscription  of  $1,000,- 
000  was  made  by  the  city  in  October,  1871,  and  the  corre- 
sponding municipal  loan  was  negotiated  in  1873-74.' 

^  Mayor's  Message  of  January  15,  1872,  p.  48. 
"  Ordinance  of  September  14,  1869,  No.  59. 

*  The  financial  results  of  this  reckless  subscription  were  precisely 
what  might  have  been  expected.    The  investment  was  unproductive 


3l8  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

(Municipal  Buildings  Loans).  In  1865  a  special  com- 
mission was  appointed  for  the  erection  of  a  new  City  Hall, 
and  empowered  to  issue  bonds  to  the  amount  of  $500,000, 
subject  to  the  ratification  of  the  General  Assembly."  An 
independent  enabling  act  was  passed  in  the  following  year, 
containing  no  confirmation  of  the  borrowing  clause  of  the 
ordinance.^  Construction  was,  however,  begun  in  1867  in 
the  manner  provided  by  the  ordinance,  and  bonds  to  the 
amount  of  $32,000  were  issued.  At  this  point,  the  legality 
of  such  issue,  in  the  absence  of  any  explicit  confirmation 
by  the  General  Assembly,  was  raised  and  submitted  to  judi- 
cial determination.  In  1868  the  Court  of  Appeals,  revers- 
ing the  ruling  of  the  lower  court,  decided  that  specific  con- 
firmation was  vital,  and  that  in  its  absence,  the  appointment 
of  the  building  committee  was  unauthorized,  and  its  action 
nugatory.  Before  this  decision  had  been  rendered,  the 
legislature  had  authorized  a  new  municipal  loan  for  the 
construction  of  a  City  Hall,  and  an  ordinance  conformable 
thereto  was  promptly  passed.  An  amicable  adjustment  was 
effected  with  respect  to  the  building  contracts  already  made, 
and  apparently  also  in  regard  to  bonds  already  issued.* 
Three  successive  loans  were  authorized  for  the  construc- 
tion of  the  new  building:  $1,000,000  in  1868;  $1,000,000 
in  1870,  and  $500,000  in  1873.*  All  three  loans  bore  inter- 
est at  six  per  cent.;  the  first  was  redeemable  after  fifteen 
years,  the  second  and  third  after  thirty  years.  Between 
1868  and  1875,  $2,468,000  were  issued,  which,  with  the 
$32,000  issued  in  1867,  aggregated  the  maximum  amount 
authorized. 

from  the  first,  and  in  1898  the  authoritative  statement  was  made 
that  the  city's  holding  could  not  be  sold  "  for  any  reasonable  price 
in  cash";  see  letter  from  Receiver  John  K.  Cowen  of  the  Balti- 
more and  Ohio  Railroad  Company,  in  Report  of  City  Register, 
January  3,  1899. 

^  Ordinance  of  September  25,  1865,  No.  58. 

* "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1866,  ch.  i. 

*  Scharf,  "  History  of  Baltimore  City  and  County,"  p.  177. 

* "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1868,  ch.  391;  1870,  ch.  303;  1872,  ch.  ZT- 
Ordinances  of  June  24,  1868,  No.  62;  April  15,  1870,  No.  Z7\  Feb- 
ruary 8,  1872,  No.  15. 


THE   FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    1857-1897       319 

In  1873,  additional  Jail  Stock  to  the  amount  of  $ioi,- 
576.48  was  issued. 

(Jones'  Falls  Loans),  The  destruction  wrought  to  public 
and  private  property  by  successive  freshets  in  Jones'  Falls 
in  1868  led  to  the  adoption  of  radical  measures  for  the  im- 
provement of  this  troublesome  water  course.  In  1870  a 
municipal  loan  of  $2,500,000  was  authorized  for  carrying 
out  a  plan  of  improvement  recommended  by  a  specially 
appointed  commission.^  Between  1872  and  1888,  bonds  to 
the  amount  of  $2,336,700,  bearing  interest  at  from  six  to 
three  per  cent,  and  redeemable  in  1900,  were  issued.  A  sec- 
ond loan  of  $1,500,000  was  authorized  in  1874  by  state  and 
municipal  legislation,  but  failed  of  confirmation  by  popular 
vote.* 

(Various  Loans).  Municipal  loans  were  also  issued  for 
the  following  purposes:  $250,000  in  1880-81  and  $350,000 
in  1885-88  for  the  construction  of  the  Harford  Run  Sewer;* 
$500,000  in  1881-84  for  repaving  certain  streets  of  the  city 
with  improved  materials,  the  first  of  an  important  series  of 
similar  measures  noted  below;*  $200,000  in  1873  and  the 
same  amount  in  1883  for  the  extension  of  Patterson  Park, 
the  interest  upon  which,  as  upon  other  park  loans,  was  de- 
frayed by  the  Park  Board  from  out  the  franchise  tax  upon 
street  railways."  Finally,  $236,013.56  was  issued  for  mis- 
cellaneous purposes. 

i88p-i8p8.  The  distinctive  feature  in  the  growth  of  mu- 
nicipal indebtedness  in  the  decade  from  1889  to  1898  was 
the  issue  of  large  composite  loans  for  various  municipal 

* "  Laws  of  Maryland,  1870,  ch.  113;  Ordinance  of  January  31, 
1870,  No.  12.  For  amendatory  and  supplementary  legislation,  see 
"  Baltimore  City  Code,"  1879,  pp.  553-554,  note. 

* "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1874,  ch.  179.  Ordinance  of  February  12, 
1874,  No.  4 

'  Ordinances  of  October  ii,  1879  (No.  86),  and  May  29,  1884 
(No.  IIS). 

* "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1880,  ch.  116;  Ordinance  of  October  4, 
1880,  No.  140.     See  below,  p.  320. 

'Ordinances  of  June  23,  1871  (No.  116),  and  October  19,  1882 
(No.  120). 


320  THE   FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF    BALTIMORE 

improvements.  The  need  of  additional  school-houses, 
parks,  bridges,  municipal  buildings,  improved  paving,  street 
reconstruction  was  urgently  felt,  and,  with  a  burdensome 
tax  rate  and  inelastic  revenues,  there  was  a  growing  ten- 
dency to  provide  for  these  wants  by  borrowing,  instead  of 
by  further  direct  taxation.  It  was  found  that  legislative 
sanction  and  popular  ratification  could  be  obtained  as  easily 
for  a  large  as  for  a  small  use  of  municipal  credit,  and  the 
several  loans  actually  made  were  considerable  in  amount 
and  composite  in  kind.  As  in  the  case  of  an  omnibus  ap^ 
propriation  bill,  the  desirable  items  were  often  able  to 
secure  popular  confirmation  for  a  composite  loan  of  which 
certain  elements  were  objectionable.  The  actual  increase 
in  the  funded  indebtedness  of  the  city  during  the  decade 
was  $3,702,139.25;  redemptions  took  place  from  out  the 
sinking  funds  and  by  the  sale  of  the  city's  productive  assets 
to  the  amount  of  $14,379,160.75 — making  the  total  increase 
of  debt  authorized  $18,081,300.  Of  this  amount,  $4,295,100 
was,  on  December  31,  1897,  still  unissued.  Of  the  loans 
authorized,  $15,000,000,  was  made  in  three  composite  loans, 
for  various  municipal  improvements.  The  remaining 
amount  was  for  the  construction  of  wire  conduits,  for  fund- 
ing floating  indebtedness,  and  for  miscellaneous  purposes. 

(Municipal  Improvement  Loans).  The  three  composite 
loans  authorized  for  municipal  improvements  were  as  fol- 
lows : 

(a),  $5,000,000,  authorized  in  1888,  in  the  form  of  bonds 
bearing  interest  at  from  three  to  four  per  cent,  (as  issued, 
three  and  a  half  per  cent.),  redeemable  in  1928,  and  devoted 
to  the  following  purposes:  water  sewers,  $1,750,000;  street 
reconstruction,  $1,200,000;  street  paving,  $1,000,000;  school 
houses,  $400,000;  parks,  $250,000;  bridges,  $250,000;  mu- 
nicipal buildings,  $150,000/ 

(b).  $6,000,000  authorized  in  1892  in  the  form  of  bonds 
bearing  interest  at  not  more  than  four  per  cent,  (as  issued, 

*"Laws  of  Maryland,"  1888,  ch.  131;  Ordinance  of  September 
26,  1888,  No.  98. 


THE   FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE   CITY,    1857-1897       32I 

three  and  a  half  per  cent.),  redeemable  in  1940,  and  devoted 
to  the  following  purposes:  court  house  $1,750,000;  street 
paving,  $1,600,000;  water  sewers,  $1,000,000;  bridges,  $600,- 
000;  school  houses,  $400,000;  street  opening,  $300,000; 
wire  conduits,  $225,000;  topographical  survey,  $125,000/ 

(c).  $4,000,000  authorized  in  1894  in  the  form  of  bonds 
bearing  interest  at  not  more  than  four  per  cent,  (as  issued, 
three  and  a  half  per  cent.),  redeemable  in  1945,  and  de- 
voted to  the  following  purposes:  court  house,  $1,000,000; 
water  extension,  $2,000,000;  parks,  $1,000,000.'' 

(Floating  Debt  Loan).  The  floating  debt  of  the  city,  as 
it  existed  on  January  i,  1896,  was  funded  by  virtue  of  legis- 
lation authorizing  a  loan  to  the  amount  of  $1,600,000.^  Of 
this  maximum,  the  sum  of  $1,453,000,  in  three  and  a  half 
per  cent,  stock  redeemable  in  1936,  was  issued  during  1897. 

(Various  Loans).  The  remaining  $600,000  of  the  Lake 
CHfton  Water  Loan  of  1886  was  issued  in  1889-91,  and  $28,- 
000  of  the  Jones'  Falls  loan  was  issued  in  1892,  In  1896 
the  General  Assembly  authorized  the  issue  of  $1,000,000  of 
city  stock,  bearing  interest  at  not  more  than  four  per  cent, 
and  redeemable  in  1922,  to  provide  a  system  of  municipal 
conduits  for  the  reception  of  telegraph,  telephone,  electric 
light  and  other  wires  under  the  streets  of  Baltimore.  The 
corresponding  ordinance  was  passed  and  the  necessary 
popular  ratification  secured,  but  no  actual  issue  took  place 
within  the  period  considered.* 

Guaranteed  Debt. 

The  development  of  the  guaranteed  debt  of  Baltimore  is 
entirely  identified  with  the  extension  of  municipal  aid  to 

^ "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1892,  ch.  138;  Ordinance  of  October  7, 
1892,  No.  100. 

*  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1894,  ch.  149;  Ordinance  of  October  5, 
1894,  No.  137. 

' "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1896,  ch.  370;  Ordinance  of  July  2,  1896, 
No.  112. 

*  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1896,  ch.  350;  Ordinance  of  July  25,  1896, 
No.  120;  cf.  above,  pp.  297-298. 

V 


322 


THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 


works  of  internal  improvement.  Mention  has  already  been 
made  of  the  circumstances  under  which  the  city  in  1852 
became  liable  by  municipal  endorsement  for  the  interest  and 
principal  of  the  bonds  of  the  Northwestern  Railroad 
Company,  the  York  and  Cumberland  Railroad  Company, 
and  the  Pittsburg  and  Connellsville  Railroad  Company,  to 
the  maximum  amounts  of  $1,500,000,  $500,000  and  $1,000,- 
000,  respectively/  In  the  case  of  the  Pittsburg  and  Con- 
nellsville Railroad  Company,  the  municipal  guarantee  was 
subsequently  replaced  by  a  direct  municipal  loan.  En- 
dorsed bonds  of  the  other  two  corporations  were  issued  to 
the  amounts  proposed,  and  the  city's  interest  was  pro- 
tected in  each  case  by  a  mortgage  lien  upon  the  railroad 
and  its  equipment.  In  1867  the  city  consented  to  guarantee 
the  bonds  of  the  Union  Railroad  Company — organized  for 
the  construction  of  a  short  line  connecting  certain  local 
roads  with  tidewater — to  the  maximum  amount  of  $500,- 
000;  but  only  $117,000  of  the  sum  authorized  was  issued. 
Finally,  three  distinct  issues  of  Western  Maryland  Railroad 
Company  bonds  were  endorsed  by  the  city  between  1861 
and  1870. 

The  increase  and  reduction  of  the  guaranteed  debt  are 
shown  in  the  following  table: 


Year. 

Northwestern 
Virginia 
Railroad 
Company. 

York  and 

Cumberland 

Railroad 

Company. 

Western 
Maryland 
Railroad 
Company. 

Union 
Railroad 
Company. 

Total. 

1861... 

$1,500,000 

1500,000 

$100,000 

$1,600,000 

1862. . . 

1,500,000 

500,000 

175,000 

1,675,000 

1863-67 

1,500,000 

500,000 

200,000 

.... 

1,700,000 

1868. . . 

1,500,000 

500,000 

350,000 

75,000 

2,425,000 

1869. . . 

836,500 

500,000 

500,000 

112,000 

1,948,500 

1870. . . 

773,500 

500,000 

500,000 

117,000 

1,890,500 

1871. . . 

748,000 

500,000 

1,000,000 

117,000 

2,365,000 

1872... 

724,500 

500,000 

1,650,000 

117,000 

2,991,500 

1873. . . 

656,500 

500,000 

1,375,000 

117,000 

2,648,500 

1874. . . 

3,000 

500,000 

1,37.5,000 

117,000 

1,995,000 

1875-77 

.... 

500,000 

1,375,000 

117,000 

1,992,000 

1878-87 

1,375,000 

117,000 

1,492,000 

1888-95 

875,000 

117,000 

982,000 

1896-97 

875,000 

875.000 

*  See  above,  p.  191. 


THE    FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    1857-1897       323 

The  results  of  the  poHcy  of  municipal  endorsement  were 
hardly  more  favorable  than  the  consequences  of  direct  mu- 
nicipal loans  to  works  of  internal  improvement.  Of  the 
four  projects  which  received  aid  of  this  kind,  only  the  York 
and  Cumberland  Railroad  Company  met  its  interest  obli- 
gation faithfully  from  the  time  of  issue  until  the  redemp- 
tion of  the  $500,000  endorsed  securities,  in  1877.  The 
Union  Railroad  Company  was  in  default  from  1867  until 
1870,  after  which  time  until  the  maturity  of  the  bonds  no 
further  lapse  occurred.  The  Northwestern  Virginia  Rail- 
road Company  paid  the  interest  obligation  upon  its  guar- 
anteed securities  for  some  years  after  their  issue,  and  Balti- 
more suffered  no  loss  from  the  endorsement.*  In  1861  the 
Company,  then  under  the  control  of  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio 
Railroad  Company,  defaulted  upon  the  semi-annual  inter- 
est payment,  and  thenceforth  the  burden  of  the  guaranteed 
bonds  was  thrown  upon  the  city.  On  January  i,  1864,  the 
total  default  in  interest  was  $360,000,  with  a  semi-annual 
payment  then  due.  Ridiculous  offers  for  the  purchase  of 
the  city's  interest  were  rejected,  and  a  foreclosure  of  the 
city's  first  mortgage  upon  the  road  was  agitated.  This  re- 
sulted in  a  proposition  from  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  Rail- 
road Company  to  purchase  the  city's  entire  claim  for  $1,- 
200,000,  and  in  the  course  of  1864  this  offer  was  accepted. 

^  In  1859  the  city  assented  to  a  remarkable  proposition  for  a 
direct  loan  to  the  railroad,  nominally  for  the  purpose  of  per- 
manently arching  the  tunnels  of  the  line.  Thirty-five  per  cent  for 
the  first  year  and  twenty-five  per  cent,  for  three  succeeding  years 
of  all  cash  dividends  upon  the  city's  holding  of  the  capital  stock  of 
the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  Railroad  Company  were  to  be  lent  to  the 
railroad.  The  amount  advanced  was  not  to  exceed  $73,000  in  the 
first  year  and  $53,000  in  any  succeeding  year,  and  was  to  be  secured 
by  a  five-year  bond  of  the  Company,  pledging  "  the  net  earnings 
of  their  railroad  after  the  payment  of  all  previous  obligations  then 
accrued,  to  the  discharge  of  such  bond "  (Ordinance  of  July  16, 
1859,  No.  100).  Several  loans  were  made  under  the  authority 
thus  conferred  (Register's  Report  of  January  16,  1862);  and  when, 
in  1862,  the  enabling  ordinance  was  repealed  (Ordinance  of  Feb- 
ruary 18,  1862,  No.  i),  the  amount  due  the  city,  exclusive  of  in- 
terest, was  nearly  $80,000. 


324  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

The  funds  so  obtained  were  transferred  to  the  Commission- 
ers of  Finance,  allowed  to  accumulate  as  a  sinking  fund, 
and  ultimately  utilized,  in  part  for  the  cancellation,  in  part 
for  the  redemption  of  the  guaranteed  bonds.  After  1873 
this  endorsement  ceased  to  figure  as  any  part  of  the  guar- 
anteed debt  of  the  city. 

The  repeated  endorsement  of  Western  Maryland  Rail- 
road Company  securities  formed  the  most  important  feat- 
ure in  the  history  of  the  guaranteed  debt.  The  Baltimore, 
Carroll  and  Frederick  Railroad  Company  was  incorporated 
by  the  legislature  of  Maryland  in  1852  for  the  construction 
of  a  railroad  from  Baltimore  or  from  a  suitable  point  on  the 
Baltimore  and  Susquehanna  Railroad,  to  Westminster,  and 
thence  westwardly  to  some  point  on  the  Monacacy  River 
in  the  direction  of  Hagerstown.  The  total  capital  stock 
was  limited  to  $1,000,000,  and  authority  was  given  to 
borrow  not  more  than  $200,000,  In  the  following  year, 
the  corporate  name  was  changed  to  the  Western  Maryland 
Railroad  Company,  and  power  given  to  issue  additional 
bonds  to  an  amount  of  $1,000,000.^  The  total  sum  of  bonds 
authorized  ($1,200,000)  was  arranged  in  two  series  of  equal 
amount,  and  in  1858  the  railroad  executed  its  first  mortgage 
to  secure  $600,000  thereof.  A  portion  of  these  bonds  were 
sold  at  a  considerable  discount,  and  the  proceeds  enabled 
the  road  to  be  opened  in  August,  1859,  from  the  Relay  to 
Owings  Mills.  Further  sales  were  found  impossible  save 
at  ruinous  sacrifice. 

The  city's  aid  was  for  the  first  time  extended  to  the  Com- 
pany in  1861-62  by  an  endorsement  of  bonds  in  successive 
installments  to  the  amount  of  $200,000,  secured  by  a  first 
mortgage  upon  the  road  and  its  equipment.^  By  means  of 
the  funds  so  provided,  the  road  was  extended  to  Union 
Bridge  where  its  further  progress  was  for  some  years  ar- 

*  "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  i860,  ch.  20;  Ordinance  of  July  23,  i860, 
No.  68.  Twenty  per  cent,  of  the  proceeds  of  the  sale  of  the  bonds 
was  reserved  and  invested  by  the  City  Register  as  a  sinking  fund 
for  their  ultimate  payment. 


THE    FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    1857-1897       325 

rested.  The  city  became  more  directly  interested  in  1866 
by  a  direct  municipal  subscription  of  $200,000,  paid  in  six 
per  cent,  stock,  redeemable  after  July  i,  1890.  During 
1867-68  occurred  a  further  municipal  endorsement  of  the 
Company's  bonds  to  the  amount  of  $300,000,  secured  by  a 
second  mortgage.^  The  priority  of  the  city's  lien  under  this 
second  mortgage  was  waived  in  1868  in  favor  of  a  loan 
issued  by  the  Company  to  the  amount  of  $600,000,  known 
as  the  "preferred  second  mortgage  bonds,"  to  which- the 
city  did  not  itself  subscribe.  In  1870  the  road  was  again 
in  financial  straits,  and  the  city  agreed  to  endorse  the  six 
per  cent,  bonds  of  the  Western  Maryland  Railroad  Com- 
pany, redeemable  on  January  i,  1900,  to  an  amount  of  $1,- 
400,000.  During  1870,  $500,000  of  these  endorsed  "  third 
mortgage  bonds"  were  issued,  and  during  1871,  $650,000; 
but  $275,000  were  surrendered  and  cancelled  in  connection 
with  the  direct  municipal  loan  of  1872.  The  first  two  is- 
sues of  endorsed  bonds,  aggregating  $500,000,  were  retired 
in  1886  from  out  the  proceeds  of  the  large  direct  loan  of 
that  year.'  The  liability  of  the  city  was  thus  reduced  to 
endorsement  of  the  $875,000  "  third  mortgage  bonds."  ' 

The  history  of  the  guaranteed  securities  of  the  Western 
Maryland  Railroad  Company  is  largely  a  record  of  contin- 
uous default.  As  a  burden  upon  the  municipal  treasury, 
there  was  practically  no  difference  between  municipal  en- 
dorsement and  direct  municipal  loan.  On  January  i,  1879, 
the  city  had  paid  $720,000  in  interest  upon  the  first,  second 

* "  Laws  of  Maryland,"  1864,  ch.  298;  Ordinance  of  May  18,  1864, 
No.  TZ-  The  same  sinking  fund  reservation  was  required  as  in  the 
first  endorsement;  by  Ordinance  of  August  9,  1867,  No.  58,  the 
reservation  was  reduced  from  twenty  to  ten  per  cent. 

*  See  above,  page  316;  $43,500  of  the  first  issue  remained  in  the 
possession  of  the  Commissioners  of  Finance. 

*  These  bonds  mature  on  January  i,  1900.  In  1898  a  municipal 
loan  was  authorized  to  the  amount  of  $1,875,000,  of  which  $875,000 
is  to  be  applied  in  due  course  to  the  retirement  of  the  "  third 
mortgage  bonds."  This  will  result  in  the  extinction  of  the  guar- 
anteed debt  of  the  city,  and  the  increase  of  the  funded  debt  by  a 
corresponding  amount. 


326  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF    BALTIMORE 

and  third  endorsed  mortgage  bonds — practically  the  entire 
amount  for  which  the  Western  Maryland  was  liable  with 
respect  to  these  securities.  In  1879  the  municipal  sink- 
ing fund,  instead  of  the  general  city  treasury,  was  charged 
with  the  payment  of  interest  upon  the  Western  Maryland 
indebtedness.  Thereafter  the  road  paid  interest  upon  the 
first,  but  continued  in  default  upon  the  second  mortgage 
bonds,  until  both  classes  of  securities  were  retired  by  the 
issue  of  the  loan  of  1887.  The  third  endorsed  mortgage 
bonds  ($875,000)  remained  an  uninterrupted  charge  upon 
the  sinking  fund  accumulations,  and  the  debt  due  the  city 
by  the  road  from  the  default  of  interest  thereon  was  on 
January  i,  1897,  $1,365,000..' 

Floating  Debt. 

The  periodic  accumulation  of  floating  indebtedness,  with 
the  consequent  necessity  of  funding  existing  claims  against 
the  city  by  the  repeated  issue  of  formal  loans,  formed  a 
characteristic  feature  of  the  later  financial  history  of  Balti- 
more. Between  1856  and  1897  six  loans  were  authorized 
for  this  purpose,  resulting  in  an  increase  of  funded  indebt- 
edness to  the  amount  of  $7,233,800.  Of  this  sum,  $7,088,- 
800  was  incurred  after  1867,  and  $5,635,500  between  1867 
and  1878  alone.  The  floating  indebtedness  at  the  begin- 
ning of  each  fiscal  year  from  1856  to  1897  is  shown  in  the 
following  table: 

1857 $  142,189.98  1862 $  587,820.72 

1858 111,333.00  1863 108,219.51 

1859 419,017.78  1864 91,500.00 

i860 458,745.59  1865 183,000.00 

1861 235,106.87  1866 199,224.00 

^  Mention  should  also  be  made  of  the  continued  default  upon 
$43,500  of  the  "  first  mortgage  endorsed  bonds,"  held  by  the  Com- 
missioners of  Finance,  and  upon  the  certificate  of  matured  coupons, 
funded  in  1879  (cf-  below,  page  339). 

For  the  aggregate  indebtedness  of  the  Western  Maryland  Rail- 
road Company  to  the  city,  see  above,  p.  300. 


THE   FINANCES   OF  BALTIMORE   CITY,    1857-1897      327 
1867 $    280,800.00  1884 $    258,237.31 

1868 1,929,866.94'    1885 55.379-53 

1869 930,260.80    1886 38,480.47* 

1870 617,355.20    1887 57.278.61' 

1871 749,585.29'    1888 158,171.40 

1872 610,531.46    1889 347,512.33 

1873 875,415.90    1890 433,318.88 

1874 142,576.03"    1891 148,394.54 

1875 702,310.63    1892 82,935.97 

1876 1,103,716.49    1893 473,490.43 

1878 1,342,721.19*    1894 1,121,122.43 

1879 622,649.18    1895 1,321,223.47 

1880 296,370.28    1896 1,385.50379 

1881 155.776.37    1897 1,368,260.96 

1882 29,774.48    1898 239,902.45' 

1883 261,344.15 

Floating  indebtedness  played  no  important  part  in  the 
city's  finances  prior  to  1862.  The  City  Register  was  com- 
monly authorized  to  make  temporary  loans  during  the 
course  of  the  year,  of  specified  amount  or  to  the  amount  of 
uncollected  taxes,  for  the  purposes  of  meeting  the  city's 
maturing  obligations.^  These  loans  were  renewed  at  short 
intervals,  and  were  reduced  or  extinguished  with  a  favor- 
able turn  in  the  city's  finances.  The  Register's  estimate  of 
expenditures  for  the  ensuing  twelvemonth,  submitted  to 
the  City  Council  at  the  beginning  of  each  fiscal  year,  ordi- 
narily revealed  "  existing  claims  "  against  the  city  of  con- 
siderable amount;  but  these  represented  temporary  rather 
than  permanent  deficits.  The  only  exception  to  this  was  a 
floating  debt  of  $145,000,  caused  by  extraordinary  expendi- 

*  $1,700,000  funded  during  1868. 

*  $800,200  funded  during  1871-73. 

*  $2,000,000  funded  during  1874-75. 

*  $1,035,300  funded  during  1878-79. 

'  Surplus.  "$1,453,000  funded  during  1897. 

'Ordinances  of  June  12,  1858  (No.  27)',  May  30,  1859  (No.  87); 
July  23,  i860  (No.  69). 


328  THE   FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

tures  at  the  outbreak  of  the  Civil  War;  this  was  funded  in 
1862,  together  with  a  defence  debt  of  $80,000/ 

The  first  serious  accumulation  of  floating  indebtedness 
occurred  in  the  years  from  1862  to  1867.  It  is  virtually 
impossible  to  trace  the  precise  course  of  this  deficit.  The 
existence  of  any  large  floating  indebtedness  was  at  no  time 
intimated  in  the  financial  reports  of  the  city  published  dur- 
ing this  period.  Yet  in  the  first  formal  financial  statement 
made  after  the  accession  of  Mayor  Robert  T.  Banks  to 
office  in  1867,  it  appeared  that  unpaid  claims  were  then  out- 
standing against  the  city  to  the  amount  of  $1,929,866.94." 
A  part  of  this  was  undoubtedly  incurred  in  the  reckless 
spirit  born  of  military  exigencies.  The  city  was  borrow- 
ing freely  for  its  defence  and  for  the  payment  of  bounties, 
and  was  spending  in  all  directions  with  lavish  hand.  In 
addition  to  this  incidental  waste,  it  seems  likely,  however, 
that  some  considerable  portion  of  the  debt  was  the  direct 
outcome  of  municipal  corruption.  The  city  treasury  was 
never  actually  looted  as  in  New  York  under  the  Tweed 
regime;  but  public  funds  were  undoubtedly  squandered 
and  freely  diverted  to  improper  persons  and  purposes.  In 
February,  1868  a  municipal  loan  to  the  amount  of  $1,700,- 
000  was  authorized  for  funding  the  then  existing  floating 
indebtedness,  and  this  entire  amount  was  issued  within  the 
year.* 

In  the  decade  following  1868,  year  after  year  found  the 
municipal  treasury  embarrassed  by  large  accumulations  of 
unpaid  claims.  Upon  three  occasions  the  burden  of  float- 
ing indebtedness  became  intolerable  and  special  funding 
loans  were  authorized — $800,000  in  1870,  $2,000,000  in 
1874,  and  $1,500,000  in  1878.  The  resulting  addition  to 
the  funded  debt  of  the  city  was  $3,835,500. 

The  explanation  of  this  chronic  deficit  is  to  be  found  in 
certain  reprehensible  practises   in   municipal   financiering, 

^  Ordinance  of  April  19,  1862,  No.  17. 
^  Mayor's  Message  of  January  21,  1868. 
*  Ordinance  of  April  24,  1873,  No.  45. 


THE   FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    1857-1897       329 

present  to  some  extent  in  every  period  of  municipal  his- 
tory, but  peculiarly  in  vogue  during  these  years.  These 
were:  (i)  adoption  of  an  inadequate  tax-levy;  (2)  overesti- 
mate of  municipal  receipts;  (3)  appropriations  for  specific 
purposes  made  after  the  adoption  of  the  tax-levy. 

(i).  After  the  close  of  the  Civil  War  a  low  tax  rate  may 
be  said  to  have  become,  to  an  increasing  degree,  a  central 
issue  in  municipal  campaigns.  The  tax-levy  was  ordinarily 
determined  less  with  reference  to  sound  budgetary  prin- 
ciples than  to  its  probable  efifect  upon  the  unthinking 
voter.  This  was  especially  the  case  in  election  years.  A 
low  tax  rate  in  the  present  with  a  possible  floating  debt  in 
the  future  invariably  proved  more  attractive  than  a  higher 
tax  rate  and  a  clear  balance.  Accordingly  either  by  the 
partial  neglect  of  existing  claims,  or  by  taking  the  most 
favorable  estimate  of  variable  conditions,  the  tax-levy  was 
fixed  at  an  attractive  rate,  and  a  new  or  an  increased  float- 
ing debt  incurred. 

(2).  The  same  result  was  attained,  with  what  appeared  to 
be  some  greater  justification,  by  the  deliberate  or  unintelli- 
gent overestimate  of  the  amount  of  revenues  likely  to 
accrue  to  the  municipal  treasury  within  the  fiscal  year.  Thus 
in  the  formation  of  the  budget,  miscellaneous  receipts  were 
often  overestimated,  and  account  taken  of  income  from  the 
city's  investments,  the  receipt  of  which  was  highly  uncer- 
tain. More  serious  and  more  reprehensible  was  the  prac- 
tise of  assuming  year  after  year  a  larger  proportion  of  taxes 
collectible  within  the  current  year  than  repeated  experience 
and  sound  fiscal  judgment  warranted.  Thus  in  1871  the 
fiscal  year  was  made  to  end  on  October  31  instead  of  De- 
cember 31,  as  theretofore,  without  any  corresponding  ad- 
vance in  the  time  of  making  up  the  budget  and  reporting 
the  tax-levy.  The  period  within  which  tax  collections  could 
be  made  was  in  consequence  reduced  precisely  two  months. 
Despite  this  reduction,  the  budget  was  formed  and  the  tax- 
levy  was  determined  upon  the  assumption  that  practically 
the  same  proportion  of  taxes  would  be  collected  within  the 


330  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

shorter  as  in  the  longer  term.  Between  the  years  1871  and 
1876  the  tax  rate  was  based  on  the  estimate  that  sev- 
enty per  cent,  of  the  whole  tax  levied  was  collectible  within 
the  current  year,  whereas  in  actual  fact  the  gross  receipts 
averaged  about  fifty-five  per  cent.^ 

(3).  As  has  been  noted  in  the  consideration  of  the  mu- 
nicipal budget,  the  tax-levy  ordinances  and  the  general  ap- 
propriation bill  were  presented  to  the  City  Council  at  the 
same  time,  commonly  in  the  latter  part  of  April.  Any  addi- 
tion to  the  general  appropriation  bill  made  without  a  corre- 
sponding increase  in  the  tax-levy,  and  any  special  appro- 
priation made  in  the  considerable  interval  between  the 
adoption  of  the  tax-levy  and  the  close  of  the  fiscal  year, 
were  under  ordinary  circumstances  entirely  unprovided  for. 
The  latter  practise  of  making  special  appropriations  to  be 
paid  from  "  unappropriated  funds "  in  the  city  treasury, 
or  by  some  other  form  of  providential  intervention,  was 
especially  in  vogue,  and  was  responsible  in  considerable 
part  for  the  recurring  floating  indebtedness  of  the  period. 

The  ordinary  course  by  which  a  floating  debt  was  accu- 
mulated is  well  illustrated  in  the  financial  history  of  1876.* 
The  municipal  budget  reported  by  the  joint  Ways  and 
Means  Committee  to  the  City  Council  in  April  of  that  year, 
contained  appropriations  aggregating  the  sum  of  $6,284,- 
061.36,  wherein  was  included  the  then  existing  floating  debt 
of  $702,311.03.  Receipts  from  sources  other  than  taxation 
were  estimated  at  $2,944,878.76,  leaving  to  be  provided  by 
taxation,  $3,339,182.60.  The  tax  rate  actually  reported  was 
$1.80  (on  $100),  upon  a  taxable  basis  of  $231,503,129,  with 
estimated  collection  of  seventy  per  cent,  within  the  fiscal 
year.  Had  the  entire  amount  estimated  been  collected,  the 
proceeds  would  have  been  only  $2,868,323.75  or  $470,758.85 
less  than  the  amount  required,  showing  that,  even  under  the 
conditions  assumed,  a  tax-levy  of  something  more  than 
$2.00  instead  of  $1.80  was  necessary.     This  inevitable  float- 

^  See  table  on  pp.  269-270,  above. 

*  See  Report  of  City  Comptroller,  November  i,  1876. 


THE   FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    1857-1897       33 1 

ing  debt  of  $470,758.85  was  more  than  doubled  by  the  fail- 
ure of  tax-collections  to  reach  the  proportion  estimated. 
During  the  five  years  preceding  1876  the  collections  had 
never  in  any  one  year  reached  fifty-nine  per  cent,  of  the 
amount  levied,  and  averaged  less  than  fifty-five  per  cent. 
Every  member  of  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  was 
familiar  with  this  fact,  yet  in  the  budget  of  1876  a  seventy 
per  cent,  collection  was  coolly  counted  upon.  The  actual 
collection  was  something  less  than  fifty-five  and  a  half  per 
cent,  of  the  amount  levied,  leaving  a  further  deficiency  of 
$636,767.87.  Finally  in  the  interval  between  the  adoption 
of  the  budget  proper  and  the  close  of  the  fiscal  year,  special 
appropriation  bills  were  passed  to  the  total  amount  of  $379,- 
717.98,  for  the  payment  of  which  in  the  current  year  no 
provision  whatever  was  made.  The  gross  deficiency  aris- 
ing from  the  inadequate  levy,  the  overestimate  of  collec- 
tion and  the  special  appropriations  aggregated  $1,487,- 
244.70.  Appropriations  to  the  amount  of  $428,352.12  how- 
ever remained  in  the  treasury  undrawn  at  the  close  of  the 
fiscal  year,  thus  reducing  the  deficiency  to  $1,058,892.58. 
Adding  to  this  amount  the  overestimates  of  revenue  de- 
rived from  sources  other  than  taxation,  the  enormous  float- 
ing debt  of  $1,103,716.49,  in  existence  on  November  i,  1876, 
is  virtually  explained. 

Although  emphatic  protest  was  made  by  successive  mu- 
nicipal officers  against  the  mischief  and  danger  of  such 
financial  practises,  the  credit  of  clearly  exposing  the  pro- 
cedure and  of  effecting  some  degree  of  reform  is  to  be  at- 
tributed to  Joshua  Vansant.  Mr.  Vansant  had  already 
served  for  four  years  as  Mayor,  when  in  1875  he  be- 
came Comptroller — an  office  which  he  held  without  inter- 
ruption for  a  decade.  His  first  report  as  City  Comptroller, 
dated  November  i,  1876,  contained  a  conclusive  indictment 
of  the  fiscal  practises  then  in  vogue,  and  is  worthy  of  cita- 
tion in  some  fullness.  After  tracing  the  growth  of  the  ex- 
isting floating  debt,  the  report  continued: 

"  It  cannot  be  said  that  the  financial  system  which  brings 


332  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

about  such  results  is  erroneous,  because  system  has  had  no 
part  or  lot  in  it.  System  is  an  arrangement  founded, 
through  all  its  parts  on  some  one  principle.  There  was 
doubtless  method  in  the  practice,  so  far  as  was  convenient; 
but  it  was  based  upon  an  arbitrary  rule — not  a  principle 
in  government.  The  remedy  for  the  evil  is  simple,  practi- 
cable and  just — Harmonize  the  tax-levy  and  appropriation 
bills.  Make  the  necessary  appropriations  for  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  city  government,  then  adopt  a  tax-levy  ample 
for  the  payment  of  them,  allowing  in  addition  thereto,  a 
liberal  specified  margin  for  unforeseen  contingencies.  If, 
upon  adding  up  the  column  of  appropriations,  it  should  re- 
quire a  greater  levy  to  provide  for  the  payment  of  the  same 
than  is  just  and  proper  to  the  tax-payers,  strike  from  the 
list  such  items  as  can  be  dispensed  with,  or  may  be  post- 
poned without  prejudice  to  the  public  interest,  and  thus 
bring  down  the  appropriations  to  the  minimum  point  that 
will  subserve  effectively  the  ends  of  the  municipal  govern- 
ment. No  well-regulated  government  will  deliberately  in- 
cur a  debt  without  providing  the  means  for  its  liquidation. 
If  considerations  of  great  public  interest  or  necessity  de- 
mand large  appropriations,  it  is  much  better  to  exhibit  the 
same  to  the  public  on  the  face  of  a  tax  bill  than  to  permit 
them  to  accumulate  uncancelled,  and  in  the  end  to  swell  the 
stealthy  and  oppressive  incubus  of  a  funded  debt." 

This  wholesome  advice  exercised  a  salutary  effect  upon 
the  subsequent  financial  policy  of  the  city.  It  was  reiter- 
ated in  Mayors'  messages  and  Comptrollers'  reports,^  and 
doubtless  influenced  the  formation  of  sounder  municipal 
budgets  for  more  than  a  decade  thereafter.  The  large 
floating  debt  still  remaining  after  the  funding  operations  of 
1878  was  gradually  reduced,  and  on  January  i,  1886,  for 
the  first  time  in  many  years,  the  municipal  treasury  revealed 
an  actual  surplus. 

^  Thus  see  Messages  of  January  i,  1879  (p.  57)  and  January  23, 
1882  (p.  12), 


THE    FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    1857-1897       333 

One  more  painful  experience  was,  however,  necessary  be- 
fore the  lesson  taught  by  the  financial  history  of  the  city 
in  the  period  just  considered  was  definitely  and,  it  is  to  be 
hoped,  finally  accepted.  On  January  i,  1892,  the  floating 
debt  of  the  city  was  $82,935.97;  on  January  i,  1893,  it  had 
increased  to  $473,490.43;  on  January  i,  1894,  it  had  risen 
to  $1,121,122.43,  ^^^  o"  January  i,  1896,  it  aggregated  $l,- 
385,503.79.  The  alternatives  presented  were,  funding  or  a 
succession  of  burdensome  tax  levies.  The  latter  course 
was  as  usual  recommended  by  the  Mayor;  the  former  was 
promptly  adopted  by  the  Council.  During  1896  a  funding 
loan  of  $1,600,000  was  authorized,  of  which  amount  $1,453,- 
000  was  issued  in  the  course  of  1897. 

The  accumulation  of  this  debt  was  due  to  precisely  the 
same  causes  that  had  operated  in  the  seventies.  The  tax- 
levy  was  reduced  from  $1.80  in  1889  and  1890,  to  $1.55  in 

1891,  1892  and  1893,  and  increased  only  to  $1.70  in  1894. 
The  increase  in  the  assessed  valuation  of  property  in  the 
city,  exclusive  of  that  located  in  the  annexed  district,  during 
this  same  period  was  from  $280,158,527  in  1890,  to  $294,- 
089,810  in  1893.  The  estimates  made  of  taxes  collectible 
within  the  current  year  exceeded  the  actual  amounts  col- 
lected by  $287,779.73  in  1892  and  by  $428,000  in  1893.  Fi- 
nally, appropriations  were  made  by  the  City  Council  after 
the  fixture  of  the  tax-levy  to  the  amount  of  $102,774,73  in 

1892,  and  of  a  somewhat  larger  sum  in  1893.^ 

Sinking  Fund.'' 

The  systematic  amortization  of  the  funded  indebtedness 
of  Baltimore  is  practically  identical  in  point  of  time  with 
the  modern  period  of  the  city  government.  Before  1856 
two  sinking  funds  had  been  established.  The  first,  or  "  gen- 

*  See  Mayor's  Message  of  January  i,  1894  (p.  11);  January  i, 
1895  (p.  21).  A  hacknied  explanation  of  the  floating  indebtedness 
incurred  after  1888  was  the  excess  of  expenditures  over  receipts 
in  the  "  Annex."  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  excess  formed  only  a 
small  part  of  the  floating  debt;  but  even  were  this  not  the  case,  it 
afforded  no  justification  whatever  for  a  chronic  budgetary  deficit. 

*  See  Appendix  H. 


334  THE   FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

eral  sinking  fund,"  designed  for  the  redemption  of  the  origi- 
nal internal  improvement  and  miscellaneous  debt,  was  in 
charge  of  the  Commissioners  of  Finance,  and  received  the 
rentals  of  city  property,  and,  ordinarily,  the  premiums 
accruing  from  the  sale  of  city  stock.  The  second,  known 
as  the  "  Baltimore  and  Ohio  "  or  "  Five  Million  "  sinking 
fund,  consisted  of  a  reservation  of  ten  per  cent,  of  the  $5,- 
000,000  loaned  to  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  Railroad  in  1853, 
invested  by  the  City  Register  and  ultimately  employed  by 
the  railroad  in  the  repayment  of  this  particular  loan.  For 
the  amortization  of  the  $1,000,000  loaned  the  Pittsburg  and 
Connellsville  Railroad,  of  the  large  indebtedness  incurred 
in  the  purchase  of  the  water  plant,  and  of  certain  minor 
loans,  no  actual  provision  had  been  made,  although  in  some 
cases  specifically  authorized. 

In  1855  an  ordinance  requiring  an  annual  appropriation 
of  $6000  to  the  general  sinking  fund,  enacted  five  years 
earlier,  was  for  the  first  time  enforced.  Mayor  Swann 
called  attention  to  this  fact  in  his  first  annual  message  of 
January  19,  1857,  and  announced  his  intention  of  securing 
strict  compliance  with  the  law  thenceforth.  In  1856  a  sink- 
ing fund  for  the  Pittsburg  and  Connellsville  $1,000,000  loan 
was  created  by  the  appropriation  of  $6000  for  this  purpose, 
to  be  renewed  annually  thereafter.'  The  authorized  tax  of 
one-half  cent  for  the  amortization  of  the  water  debt  was 
first  included  in  the  levy  of  1857,  and  a  fourth  sinking  fund 
thus  created.  Finally  in  i860,  a  long-neglected  provision 
for  the  creation  of  a  sinking  fund  for  the  court-house  stock, 
issued  some  years  before,  was  enforced,  and  a  tax  of  one 
cent,  to  be  devoted  to  this  purpose,  was  included  in  the  levy 
of  i860. 

Of  greater  importance  than  the  enforcement  of  existing 
sinking  fund  requirements  was  the  specific  provision  con- 
tained in  practically  every  municipal  loan  authorized  be- 

*  This  appropriation  seems  to  have  been  made  only  twice  and  the 
fund  was  left  thereafter  to  grow  slowly  by  its  own  accumulation. 
The  default  of  the  railroad  in  its  interest  payment  was  indirectly 
responsible  for  this  neglect. 


THE   FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    1857-1897       335 

tween  1856  and  1870  for  the  creation  of  a  special  redemp- 
tion fund  and  for  the  levy  of  a  sinking  fund  tax,  designated 
in  amount  and  conceived  to  be  adequate  for  the  discharge 
at  maturity  of  the  particular  loan  authorized.  Distinct 
sinking  funds  were  thus  in  turn  created  and  maintained  for 
the  Jail  Loan,  the  Park  Loan,  the  Floating  Debt  Loan,  the 
Bounty  and  Defence  Loans,  the  Almshouse  Loan,  the  Park 
Improvement  Loan,  the  Water  Loans,  and  the  Western 
Maryland  Railroad  Guaranteed  Loan/  These  sinking 
funds  were  in  the  charge  of  the  Department  of  Finance, 
with  the  exception  of  the  Baltimore  and  'Ohio  and  Western 
Maryland  funds,  which  were  under  the  care  of  the  City 
Register.  Investments  were  limited  to  city  stock,  but  each 
fund  was  not  necessarily  restricted  to  the  particular  securi- 
ties for  the  redemption  of  which  it  was  ultimately  designed. 
Rentals  of  city  property  and  premiums  from  the  sale  of  city 
stock,  unless  otherwise  appropriated,  continued  to  accrue 
to  the  general  sinking  fund. 

The  aggregate  tax  levies  authorized  for  sinking  fund  pur- 
poses were  probably  imposed  in  no  single  year.  In  some 
cases,  the  tax  was  simply  omitted.  Oftener,  it  was  imposed 
irregularly  or  reduced  below  the  point  prescribed  by  ordi- 
nances and  required  by  sound  principles  of  municipal  amor- 
tization. On  the  whole,  however,  the  sinking  funds  pros- 
pered in  the  decade  following  1856.  A  distinct  fund  was 
created  for  each  successive  loan,  and  augmented  by  the 
proceeds  of  a  special  tax-levy.  The  high  interest  rate  of 
municipal  securities  permitted  rapid  accumulation,  and  the 
accretions  of  the  funds  were  not  permanently  diverted  to 
purposes  other  than  those  for  which  they  had  been  de- 
signed. 

In  the  loose  administration  and  municipal  misrule  of  the 

*  The  Western  Maryland  Railroad  Sinking  Fund  was  created  by 
a  reservation  of  twenty  and  ten  per  cent.,  respectively,  of  the  first 
and  second  guaranteed  loans  (cf.  above,  p.  325);  it  increased 
simply  by  the  accumulation  of  interest.  The  Park  Sinking  Fund 
was  established  in  1861  and  was  maintained  by  the  appropriation 
of  one-fifth  of  the  excess  of  the  "  park  fund  "  over  the  interest  upon 
the  park  debt. 


336  THE   FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

early  post-bellum  period  arose  the  dangerous  practise  of 
securing  temporary  loans  for  ordinary  municipal  purposes 
from  the  sinking  funds  instead  of  from  the  local  banks.  The 
City  Register  reported  on  January  27,  1868,  that  the  city 
was  using  the  redemption  funds  for  its  common  expendi- 
tures to  the  amount  of  $780,000.  It  is  probable  that  any 
unpaid  portion  of  this  advance  was  returned  from  out  the 
proceeds  of  the  refunding  loan  of  1868.  To  avert  any  repe- 
tition of  the  same  dangerous  practise,  the  sinking  funds 
which  had  hitherto  been  merged  with  the  general  funds 
of  the  city,  were  segregated  by  the  Commissioners  of 
Finance  in  March,  1868. 

The  first  retrogade  movement  in  the  care  of  the  sink- 
ing funds  began  with  the  close  of  the  Civil  War  and  culmi- 
nated a  few  years  later.  It  consisted  in  the  tacit  abandon- 
ment of  special  tax  levies  authorized  and  hitherto  imposed 
for  the  amortization  of  existing  loans,  and  in  the  failure  to 
make  any  adequate  provision  for  the  ultimate  redemption 
of  the  new  loans  issued.^  By  1868  the  sinking  fund  levies 
for  the  Jail,  Court-house,  Floating  Debt,  Bounty  and  De- 
fence Loans  had  been  abandoned,  leaving  only  the  levies 
for  the  two  Water  Loans  in  force.  Two  years  later  these 
also  were  discontinued.  This  action  was  entirely  without 
legislative  authority,  and  like  the  accumulation  of  floating 
indebtedness  was  largely  due  to  the  injudicious  reduction 
of  the  tax-levy.  In  face  of  rapidly  increasing  expenditure 
and  a  slowly  increasing  asessable  basis,  the  levy  was  cut 
from  $1.40  in  1867  to  $1.20  in  1868,  and  from  $1.60  in  1869 
to  $1.50  in  1870. 

The  nearest  approach  to  any  justification  of  the  abandon- 
ment of  the  sinking  fund  levies  appeared  in  a  roseate  report 
of  the  City  Register  of  December  31,  1868.  The  amount  of 
indebtedness  which  the  city  would  ultimately  be  called 
upon  to  discharge  was  therein  stated  to  be  $16,869,724.69. 
The  invested  sinking  funds  aggregated  $4,384,985.93,  which 
would  on  January  i,  1895,  with  their  accumulations  amount 

*  See  Appendix  E. 


THE   FINANCES   OF  BALTIMORE   CITY,    1857-1897      337 

to  $19,150,017.  This  would  allow  a  discharge  of  the  en- 
tire indebtedness  and  leave  a  balance  of  $2,280,292.31. 
This  estimate  was  held  to  warrant  the  conclusion  that  "  the 
sinking  fund  and  its  resources,  as  it  now  is,  is  ample  to  dis- 
charge the  whole  debt  at  its  maturity."  The  repeal  of 
the  various  ordinances  requiring  sinking  fund  levies  was 
accordingly  recommended.^ 

There  seems  to  have  been  no  outright  repeal  of  the  ex- 
isting ordinances  as  recommended  in  1869;  but  the  amorti- 
zation provisions  were  tacitly  neglected.  After  1870  no 
direct  tax  was  levied  for  the  benefit  of  the  earlier  sinking 
funds,  and  their  growth  was  due  solely  to  interest  accre- 
tions, to  the  rentals  of  city  property  and  to  occasional  ex- 
traordinary items  of  revenue. 

More  serious  in  its  consequences  than  the  discontinuance 
of  sinking  fund  levies  for  the  older  loans  was  the  utter 
failure  to  make  provision  for  the  amortization  of  the  addi- 
tional indebtedness  contracted  after  1870.  For  the  import- 
ant Western  Maryland  loans  of  1882  ($684,000)  and  1886 
($1,704,000),  inadequate  sinking  funds  were  provided — for 
the  former,  by  the  appropriation  of  the  premiums  accruing 
from  the  sale  of  stock  so  issued ;  for  the  latter,  by  the  appro- 
priation of  $100,000  from  out  the  proceeds  of  the  loan,  to- 
gether with  premium  accruing  from  its  sale.  Both  funds 
were  to  accumulate  solely  by  their  own  interest  accretions. 

Sinking  fund  levies  were  prescribed  in  conjunction  with 
other  important  loans  issued  between  1868  and  1888,  but 

*  Similarly  in  1871  the  Commissioners  of  Finance  reported  "  That 
the  available  assets  and  productive  property  of  the  corporation  are 
nearly  equivalent,  at  fair  valuation,  to  the  total  amount  of  its 
existing  liabilities."  A  sufficient  answer  as  to  the  soundness  of  this 
conclusion  is  contained  in  the  succeeding  report  of  the  Commis- 
sioners of  Finance  (November,  1871).  Previous  city  administra- 
tions were  therein  sharply  criticised  for  their  failure  to  impose  the 
prescribed  sinking  fund  levies  for  the  water  loans,  whereby  the 
city  then  found  itself  upon  the  eve  of  the  maturity  of  a  loan  of  five 
million  dollars,  a  portion  of  which  had  existed  nearly  twenty  years, 
with  a  redemption  fund  of  less  than  seven  and  a  half  per  cent,  of 
the  amount  to  be  redeemed. 
W 


338 


THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 


in  practise  these  levies  were  either  entirely  omitted  or  im- 
posed for  a  few  years  and  then  discontinued.  A  comparative 
statement  of  the  important  sinking  fund  levies  prescribed 
by  ordinance  and  of  the  amounts  actually  imposed  is  here 
appended : 


TiTLK  OP  Loan. 

Amount. 

Authorized 

Sinking  Fund 

Levies. 

Actual 

sinking  Fund 

Levies. 

Floating  Debt  Loan  of  1868. 

$1,700,000 

3  cents. 

1  cent,  1874-77. 

(t                   u 

11 

" 

1870. 

800,000 

1  cent. 

(<                  u 

11 

11 

1874. 

2,000,000 

2  cents.  - 

2  cents,  1874  ; 
1  cent,     1875. 

City  Hall 

" 

'« 

1868. 

1,000,000 

2  cents.   i 

2  cents,  1869-72 ; 

(1         11 

t( 

11 

1870. 

1,000,000 

2  cents. 

3  cents,  1873-74 ; 

It        11 

11 

ti 

1873. 

.500,000 

1  cent.      1 

2  cents,  1875-78. 

Jones'  Falls 

It 

" 

1870. 

2,500,000 

2  cents. 
2  cents. 

2  cents,  1874; 

ti           <i 

ti 

It 

1874. 

1,500,000 

1  cent,    1875. 

Water 

11 

11 

1874. 

4,000,000 

4  cents. 

ii 

11 

ti 

1877. 

5,000,000 

2  cents. 

Z}4  cents, 

it 
11 

11 
It 

It 

1882. 
1886. 

500,000 
1,000,000 

}{  cent. 
1  cent. 

1868-70. 

Paving 

It 

11 

1880. 

500,000 

X  cent. 

.... 

Harford  Run 

11 

tt 

1879. 

250,000 

)^  cent. 

.... 

it          11 

It 

It 

1884. 

350,000 

}4  cent. 

.... 

The  abandonment  of  sinking  fund  levies  has  been  de- 
scribed as  the  first  retrograde  movement  in  the  history  of 
local  amortization.  A  second  and  even  more  reprehensible 
procedure  was  the  diversion  of  sinking  fund  accumulations 
to  purposes  other  than  the  redemption  of  municipal  indebt- 
edness. In  other  words,  having  first  been  deprived  of  the 
most  important  source  of  revenue  from  without,  the  funds 
were  further  reduced  by  the  appropriation  of  their  own 
accretions.  This  procedure  is  directly  connected  with  the 
relation  of  the  city  to  the  Western  Maryland  Railroad,  and 
is  one  of  the  most  unfortunate  results  of  that  association. 
The  methods  of  exploitation  were  two-fold:  (i)  a  portion 
of  the  sinking  funds  was  employed  in  the  provision  of  ter- 
minal facilities  for  the  Western  Maryland  Railroad  Com- 
pany, and  in  the  purchase  of  certain  of  the  same  Company's 
securities ;  (2)  the  sinking  fund  was  charged  with  the  annual 


THE    FINANCES    OF    BALTIMORE    CITY,    1857-1897       339 

interest  payment  upon  certain  municipal  indebtedness,  con- 
tracted for  the  most  part  in  aid  of  the  Western  Maryland 
Railroad  Company. 

(i).  The  first  inroad  upon  the  sinking  fund  seems  to  have 
been  made  in  1873,  when  the  Commissioners  of  Finance 
were  instructed  to  purchase  for  the  sinking  fund,  with  any 
funds  in  their  possession,  $178,000  of  the  Western  Mary- 
land Railroad's  second  preferred  bonds  and  also  the  rail- 
road's interest  in  $200,000  of  its  third  mortgage  bonds  in 
the  possession  of  the  City  Register/  The  latter  securities 
were  endorsed  by  the  city,  and  formed  a  legitimate  invest- 
ment for  the  redemption  funds.  The  former  purchase  was 
simply  a  successful  attempt  on  the  part  of  the  railroad  to 
obtain  an  excellent  market  for  otherwise  unmarketable  se- 
curities. 

In  1874  the  Commissioners  of  Finance  were  vested  with 
discretion  to  purchase  as  investments  for  the  redemption 
funds  detached  coupons  of  the  Western  Maryland  Rail- 
road's first  mortgage  bonds,'  and  purchase  was  made  of 
these  securities  in  the  next  few  years  to  the  amount  of  $71,- 
742.  Similarly  in  1879  the  Commissioners  of  Finance  were 
authorized  to  fund  in  six  per  cent,  certificates  issued  by  the 
Western  Maryland  Railroad,  all  of  the  coupons  of  the  rail- 
road's first  mortgage  endorsed  bonds  paid  by  the  city  and 
also  of  the  preferred  second  mortgage  bonds  held  by  the 
city.*  Under  this  authority  funding  certificates  to  the 
amount  of  $226,530  were  issued  to  the  city  and  were  trans- 
ferred to  the  sinking  fund.  Both  coupons  and  funding  cer- 
tificates have  likewise  remained  in  the  redemption  funds  up 
to  the  present  time,  an  utterly  unproductive  investment. 

In  1875  efforts  were  made  by  the  Western  Maryland 
Railroad  Company  to  secure  a  city  depot.  A  desirable  site 
was  secured,  but  the  requisite  funds  were  lacking.     The 

*  Ordinance  of  April  10,  1873,  No.  23.  These  second  preferred 
bonds  have  remained  in  the  general  sinking  fund  to  the  present 
time,  an  unproductive  investment. 

*  Ordinance  of  June  2,  1874,  No.  41. 

"  Ordinance  of  April  3,  1879,  No.  22.  ! 


340  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

line  of  least  resistance  was  eventually  followed,  or  as  the 
president  of  the  Western  Maryland  Railroad  Company  with 
a  certain  genial  frankness,  stated :  "  The  plan  of  applying 
to  the  city  for  aid,  though  not  remarkable  with  the  com- 
pany for  novelty,  nor  the  last  to  suggest  itself,  was  acted 
upon."  The  Commissioners  of  Finance  were  directed  to 
use  redemption  funds  in  their  possession  to  the  amount  of 
$200,000  to  provide  terminal  facilities,  to  be  leased  to  the 
railroad  at  an  annual  rental  of  $16,000.  One-eighth  of  the 
rental  was  to  be  set  apart  annually  as  a  sinking  fund,  on 
which  the  railroad  was  allowed  six  per  cent,  interest  and 
which  fund  might  be  applied  at  any  time  to  the  purchase  for 
the  railroad  of  the  reversion  in  the  property.^  The  maxi- 
mum amount  authorized  was  expended  between  1875  and 
1879,  and  a  lease  made  as  directed.  Enlarged  depot  facili- 
ties were  provided  in  the  same  manner  in  1882-83  by  an 
investment  of  $131,163.81  of  the  sinking  funds,  upon  which 
the  railroad  contracted  to  pay  as  rental  seven  per  cent,  upon 
the  amount  invested.  Of  this  rental  one  per  cent,  was  set 
apart  for  the  ultimate  acquisition  of  the  property  by  the 
railroad.* 

The  Western  Maryland  Railroad  paid  the  stipulated 
rentals  for  both  the  original  and  the  enlarged  terminals, 
with  promptness  and  regularity,  and  the  investments 
yielding  seven  and  six  per  cent,  respectively,  proved  emi- 
nently profitable  to  the  sinking  fund.  The  funds  segre- 
gated for  the  ultimate  purchase  by  the  railroad  of  the  rever- 
sion of  the  leases  amounted  on  December  31,  1897,  to  $66,- 
910.66  and  $24,937.76,  respectively,  and  the  ultimate  disas- 
sociation  of  city  and  railroad  in  this  particular  seems  likely. 
Whatever  advantage  may  have  accrued  to  the  city,  the  pro- 
cedure was  none  the  less  reprehensible  and  in  violation  of 
fundamental  principles  of  debt  amortization. 

(2).  The  heaviest  handicap  imposed  upon  the  growth  of 
the  sinking  funds  after  the  discontinuance  of  the  tax  levies 

*  Ordinance  of  May  24,  1875,  No.  97. 
^  Ordinance  of  May  25,  1882,  No.  92. 


THE   FINANCES   OF   BALTIMORE   CITY,    1857-1897      34I 

was  the  enforced  assumption  of  the  annual  interest  pay- 
ment upon  certain  municipal  loans,.  In  1879,  with  the 
plausible  preamble  that  the  city's  real  estate  and  invest- 
ments were  a  part  of  the  funds  provided  for  the  redemption 
of  the  funded  debt,  the  sinking  fund  was  charged  with  the 
annual  interest  payment  upon  the  $1,000,000  Pittsburg  and 
Connellsville  loan  and  upon  such  part  of  the  $2,375,000  of 
Western  Maryland  indebtedness  as  the  city  might  be  called 
upon  to  assume/  The  annual  interest  charge  of  $60,000 
upon  the  one  million  Pittsburg  and  Connellsville  loan  was 
borne  by  the  sinking  fund  from  1880  until  1886  when  the 
principal  was  paid  by  the  city.  There  was  unfortunately  no 
such  release  from  the  burden  of  Western  Maryland  indebt- 
edness. The  $2,375,000  for  the  interest  payment  upon 
which  the  sinking  funds  were  made  responsible,  consisted 
of  $200,000  first  mortgage  endorsed  bonds ;  $300,000  second 
mortgage  endorsed  bonds;  $875,000  third  mortgage  guar- 
anteed bonds,  and  a  direct  municipal  loan  of  $1,000,000. 
All  of  these  securities  bore  six  per  cent,  interest.  The  Com- 
pany paid  the  interest  upon  its  first  mortgage  bonds,  but 
defaulted  upon  its  second  series,  and  the  resulting  interest 
charge  was  defrayed  from  out  the  sinking  fund  until  1887, 
when  both  of  these  earlier  issues  were  replaced  by  the  fifth 
mortgage  loan,  described  above."  Upon  the  $875,000  third 
mortgage  bonds  and  the  $1,000,000  direct  loan,  the  Company 
defaulted  practically  from  the  outset,  and  from  1879  the 
aggregate  interest  charge  of  $112,500  per  annum  was  borne 
by  the  sinking  fund. 

The  effect  of  this  exploitation  policy  upon  the  growth  of 
the  sinking  fund  can  best  be  illustrated  by  a  typical  ex- 
ample. During  1888  the  sinking  funds  received  $281,660.95 
from  the  interest  upon  investments;  $29,765  from  premium 
on  sales  of  stock;  $26,915.10  from  rental  of  real  estate;  $21,- 
869.88  from  rental  of  Western  Maryland  terminals,  and 
miscellaneous  items  swelling  the  aggregate  to  $379,412.39. 
Owing  to  the  payment  of  $112,400  interest  upon  Western 

^  Ordinance  of  April  17,  1879,  No.  33.  *  See  page  316. 


342  THE    FINANCIAL    HISTORY    OF    BALTIMORE 

Maryland  loans,  the  net  increment  of  the  funds  was  only 
$254,713.13,  or  $26,947.82  less  than  the  mere  interest  accu- 
mulation upon  the  amount  already  invested.  In  some  years 
the  loss  was  even  greater.  Thus  during  1880  the  increase 
of  the  funds  was  $436,030.07;  but  $196,290.91  of  this  was 
from  the  sale  of  city  property,  reducing  the  increment  from 
ordinary  sources  to  $239,739.76.  The  interest  accretions  of 
the  funds  within  the  same  period  should  have  been  $397,- 
447.14.  The  comment  of  the  Commissioners  of  Finance 
upon  this  result  is  inexplicable :  "  This  gratifying  result 
justifies  and  strengthens  our  confidence  in  the  efficiency  of 
the  redemption  system,  and  in  the  sufficiency  of  the  means 
provided  for  the  payment  of  the  public  debt  at  maturity." ' 
The  extent  to  which  the  general  sinking  fund  has  been 
mulcted  since  the  inauguration  of  the  policy  of  utilizing  its 
accretions  in  interest  payments  is  shown  in  the  appended 
table: 

1880 $189,420  1889 $112,605 

1881 189,885  1890 112,380 

1882 192,150  1891 112,725 

1883 190,215  1892 112,320 

\         1884 190,785  1893 112,380 

1885 190,710  1894 112,380 

1886 160,005  1895 1 12,275 

1887 122,145  1896 112,275 

1888 112,440  1897 112,500 

The  neglect  of  the  sinking  funds  may  be  said  to  have  cul- 
minated in  1878-85,  in  which  years  no  tax  levies  whatever 
were  imposed  for  this  purpose,  and  considerable  amounts 
were  withdrawn  from  the  accretions  of  the  funds  for  the 
payment   of  interest   upon   municipal    indebtedness."     The 

^  Report  of  the  Department  of  Finance,  December  31,  1880. 

'  It  was  sometimes  stated  that  the  high  price  of  municipal  securi- 
ties was  responsible  for  the  slow  growth  of  the  sinking  funds.  In 
his  message  of  January  i,  1885,  Mayor  F.  C.  Latrobe  undertook  to 
show  that  "  the  city  would  annually  pay  $150,000  for  the  privilege 
of  paying  ofi  annually  $600,000  jf  its  debt."  This  was,  however, 
surely  not  the  explanation  of  the  discontinuance  of  sinking  fund 
levies. 


THE   FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    1857-1897       343 

stationary  condition  and  threatened  exhaustion  of  the  funds 
in  the  face  of  maturing  loans  and  the  incurring  of  addi- 
tional funded  indebtedness  compelled  the  resumption  of 
sinking  fund  levies.  In  1889  a  tax  of  one-half  cent  was 
imposed  for  the  general  sinking  fund.  It  was  omitted  in 
1890  but  increased  to  five  cents  in  1891  and  continued  there- 
after. The  sinking  fund  levies  provided  by  the  water  loan 
of  1886  (i  cent),  and  the  municipal  improvement  loans  of 
1888  (3  cents)  and  1892  (2  cents)  were  imposed  with  the 
issue  of  the  respective  loans  and  were  maintained  there- 
after.^ A  further  impulse  in  the  right  direction  was  given 
by  the  vigorous  administration  of  Mayor  Alcaeus  Hooper 
(1895-97).  In  his  first  budget,  the  levy  for  the  general 
sinking  fund  was  increased  to  8^4  cents  and  other  levies 
were  continued  at  the  rates  prescribed.  Provision  was  also 
made  for  the  creation  of  sinking  funds  for  the  water  loans 
of  1877  and  1882,  authorized  at  the  time  of  the  issue  of  the 
stock  but  hitherto  neglected.  The  sinking  fund  levies  im- 
posed in  1896  aggregated  1734  cents. 

A  partial  consolidation  of  the  sinking  funds  was  recom- 
mended by  the  Commissioners  of  Finance  in  1871  as  con- 
ducing to  greater  simplicitiy  in  account  and  larger  effective- 
ness in  operation,  and  was  authorized  by  ordinance  in  1872.' 
In  1874  the  general  sinking  fund  absorbed  the  smaller 
funds,  reducing  the  total  number  of  accounts  from  sixteen 
to  nine.  A  further  consolidation  took  place  in  1879, 
whereby  the  number  of  funds  was  reduced  to  five  of  which 
two,  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  and  the  Western  Maryland 
funds,  were  in  the  custody  of  the  City  Register.  The  pro- 
cess of  consolidation  by  veiling  the  growth  of  specific  ac- 
counts undoubtedly  contributed  to  the  neglect  of  the  sink- 
ing funds.  After  1879  by  the  operation  of  new  and  the 
revival  of  neglected  redemption  provisions,  additional  sink- 
ing funds  were  created  until  on  January  i,  1897,  the  total 
number  in  existence  was  thirteen. 

^  The  resumption  of  sinking  fund  levies  was  strongly  recom- 
mended by  Mayor  Robert  C.  Davidson  in  his  message  of  January 
26,  1891.  *  Ordinance  of  February  18,  1872,  No.  18. 


344  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

The  rentals  of  city  property  accrued  to  the  sinking  fund 
during  the  entire  period  here  considered.  Premiums  from 
the  sale  of  city  stock  were  commonly  appropriated  in  the 
same  manner,  and  in  some  cases  new  issues  of  city  stock 
were  secured  for  the  funds  at  par  although  commanding  a 
considerable  premium  in  the  open  market/  In  1880  a  gen- 
eral ordinance  provided  that  premiums  upon  subsequent 
loans  should  be  invested  in  the  particular  securities  issued 
and  should  be  added  to  the  sinking  fund  created  for  the 
redemption  of  that  particular  loan.  If  i!o  such  special  sink- 
ing fund  had  been  created,  the  premium  was  to  be  placed 
to  the  credit  of  the  general  sinking  fund.' 

The  condition  of  the  sinking  funds  permitted  no  appre- 
ciable redemption  of  city  securities  during  the  first  half  of 
the  period  here  considered.  In  1863  the  early  issues  of 
"  court  house  stock  "  and  "  miscellaneous  stock  "  were  re- 
duced by  the  amount  of  $363,173.87,  and  in  1866  "  defense 
stock  "  to  the  amount  of  $109,613.95  was  cancelled.  $5,- 
000,000  six  per  cent.  "  water  stock  "  matured  in  1875,  and 
in  consequence  of  the  depletion  of  the  sinking  funds,  the 
entire  loan  was  refunded  in  1877  at  five  per  cent.  In  1878 
the  $2,000,000  "  floating  debt  loan,"  issued  in  1874,  and  the 
$200,000  "  Patterson  Park  extension  loan,"  issued  in  1873 — 
the  full  amount  of  both  of  which  were  contained  in  the  sink- 
ing funds — ^were  cancelled.  Four  maturing  loans  were  re- 
deemed from  the  general  sinking  fund  in  1884-86,  to  the 
aggregate  amount  of  $4,029,061.54.'  No  other  municipal 
obligations  matured  until  1890,  when  important  redemp- 
tions and  funding  operations  occurred.  The  "  Baltimore  and 

^  Ordinance  of  March  22,  1882,  No.  28. 

^  Ordinance  of  February  20,  1880,  No.  5.  Certain  designated  loans 
were  excepted  from  the  operation  of  this  ordinance. 

*  $1,000,000  City  Hall  Loan;  $1,000,000  Valley  Railroad  Company 
Loan;  $1,000,000  Pittsburg  and  Connellsville  Railroad  Company 
Loan;  and  $1,029,061.54  Consolidated  Loan. 

Small  portions  of  the  loans  were  not  presented  for  redemption 
at  maturity,  even  though  no  further  interest  was  paid  thereon. 
This  fact  will  explain  the  discrepancy  between  the  above  figures 
and  those  presented  in  Appendix  G. 


THE   FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    1857-1897       345 

Ohio  $5,000,000  loan "  was  discharged  by  the  receipt  of 
$2,570,754.26  from  its  special  sinking  fund  and  the  payment 
of  $2,429,267.29  by  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  Railroad  Com- 
pany. A  consolidated  six  per  cent,  loan  of  $7,306,546.22 
was  redeemed  to  the  amount  of  $2,306,546.22  from  out  the 
proceeds  of  the  city's  holding  of  Baltimore  and  Ohio  Rail- 
road Company  stock;  the  remaining  $5,000,000  in  the  ab- 
sence of  an  adequate  sinking  fund  was  refunded  at  three  and 
a  half  per  cent.  Finally  $555,566.25  of  the  original  park 
indebtedness  was  paid  from  out  the  special  sinking  fund 
maintained  by  the  Park  Commission.  Consolidated  loans 
aggregating  $2,621,421.92  and  $4,000,000  of  the  water  debt 
were  redeemed  upon  maturity  in  1894  from  out  the  sinking 
funds.  No  other  loans  matured  within  the  period  examined.^ 

Administration  and  Limitation. 

The  administration  of  the  municipal  debt,  including  the 
negotiation  of  loans,  the  payment  of  interest  and  the  dis- 
charge of  principal  at  maturity  was  vested  in  the  Commis- 
sioners of  Finance. 

The  statutory  limitation  of  the  general  borrowing  power 
of  the  city  to  $1,000,000'  was  modified  in  1861  by  the  grant 
of  authority  to  increase  the  municipal  debt  by  an  amount 
not  exceeding  $1,500,000.  Certain  miscellaneous  loans  ap- 
pear to  have  been  issued  under  this  general  power,  but  the 
essential  increase  in  municipal  indebtedness  continued  to 
be  based  upon  special  enabling  acts  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly and  the  statutory  limitation  exercised  a  merely  indirect 
influence. 

The  lavish  extension  of  municipal  aid  to  works  of  internal 
improvement,  the  reckless  contraction  of  indebtedness  dur- 
ing and  immediately  after  the  Civil  War,  and  the  general 

^  $4,300,000  in  various  issues  mature  in  1900.  In  1898  it  became 
evident  that  the  sinking  funds  would  be  unable  to  meet  the  obliga- 
tion and  preparatory  measures  were  taken  to  refund  the  loans  when 
redeemable. 

*  See  above,  page  195. 


346  THE    FINANCIAL    HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

discredit  cast  upon  local  administration  by  the  financial 
operations  of  that  period,  combined  to  induce  the  Mary- 
land Constitutional  Convention  of  1867  to  insert  in  the  fun- 
damental instrument  then  drafted  a  radical  restriction  upon 
local  borrowing  power.  The  city  was  prohibited  from 
thereafter  creating  any  debt  or  giving  or  lending  its  credit 
for  any  purpose  whatsoever,  unless  such  debt  or  credit  were 
authorized  by  a  special  act  of  the  General  Assembly,  and 
by  an  ordinance  of  the  City  Council  submitted  to  the  legal 
voters  of  the  city  and  approved  by  a  majority  of  the  votes 
then  cast.  From  these  limitations  were  excepted  temporary 
loans  to  meet  any  deficiency  in  the  city  treasury,  to  main- 
tain the  police,  safety  and  sanitary  condition  of  the  city  and 
to  provide  for  municipal  indebtedness  incurred  before  the 
adoption  of  the  Constitution.' 

Every  municipal  loan  issued  after  1867  thus  involved  an 
enabling  act  of  the  legislature,  an  ordinance  of  the  muni- 
cipality and  a  ratification  by  popular  vote.  The  restrictive 
effect  of  this  procedure  was  probably  less  than  the  framers 
of  the  Constitution  of  1867  anticipated.  The  initiative  with 
respect  to  any  proposed  municipal  loan  was  taken  by  the 
City  Council  and  an  enabling  ordinance  passed  on  the  eve 
of  a  session  of  the  legislature.  The  General  Assembly  ordi- 
narily viewed  the  proposal  as  entirely  a  matter  of  local 
concern  and  yielded  to  the  preference  of  the  city  delegation. 
To  an  electorate,  of  whom  considerably  less  than  fifty  per 
cent,  were  taxpayers,  municipal  borrowing  was  peculiarly 
"an  agreeable  process,"  and  the  referendum  served  as  a 
potential  rather  than  as  an  actual  check.  The  natural  pre- 
disposition of  the  general  body  of  voters  to  ratify  a  long 
term  funded  loan  for  costly  public  improvements,  offering 
large  opportunities  for  local  employment  and  expenditure, 
was  strengthened  after  1888  by  the  use  of  composite  loans, 
wherein,  as  in  an  omnibus  appropriation,  several  desirable 
items  were  able  to  carry  through  one  or  more  unworthy 
ones.     As  a  matter  of  fact  not  until  the  adoption  of  the 

'  Constitution  of  Maryland,  1867,  Art.  XI,  sect.  7. 


THE   FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE    CITY,    1857-1897       347 

Australian  ballot  system  in  1890,  with  its  incident  of  a 
single  ballot,  did  the  referendum  elicit  any  large  proportion 
of  the  municipal  vote. 

However  short  the  restraining  influence  of  the  constitu- 
tional limitation  may  have  fallen  of  the  views  originally 
entertained  in  regard  thereto,  its  effect  was  none  the  less 
important.  Leaving  out  of  account  its  potential  influence, 
on  at  least  two  occasions  within  the  period  here  consid- 
ered, large  improvement  loans  were  defeated  at  the  polls, 
and  it  seems  likely  that  with  the  dawn  of  a  new  municipal 
spirit  popular  endorsement  of  any  proposed  increase  of 
municipal  indebtedness  will  become  a  much  less  assured 
fact  than  has  hitherto  been  the  case. 

The  actual  vote  upon  certain  important  funded  loans  is 
presented  in  the  following  table  :^ 


Year. 

Purpose  of  Loan. 

Amount. 

Votes 
for. 

Votes 
against. 

1870 

Jones'  Falls. 

$2,000,000 

8,989 

7,393 

1874 

Jones'  Falls. 

1,500,000 

11,270 

16,832 

1874 

Water  Supply. 

4,000,000 

13,131 

6,202 

1874 

Funding  Floating  Debt. 

2,000,000 

18,027 

9,405 

1876 

Water  Supply. 

5,000,000 

16,507 

6,513 

1880 

Street  Paving. 

500,000 

13,639 

4,769 

1882 

Western  Maryland  Railroad. 

684,000 

17,3r4 

5,732 

1882 

Water  Supply. 

500,000 

13,363 

2,560 

1886 

Western  Maryland  Railroad. 

1,800,000 

12,098 

2,. 588 

1886 

Water  Supply. 

1,000,000 

11,443 

1,907 

1888 

Municipal  Improvements. 

5,000,000 

30, 102 

9,703 

1892 

Municipal  Improvements. 

6,000,000 

30,797 

5,863 

1894 

Municipal  Improvements. 

4,000,000 

24,875 

10,859 

1896 

Wire  Conduits. 

1,000,000 

21,.599 

13,507 

1898 

Western  Maryland  Railroad. 

1,875,000 

31,500 

15,955 

1898 

Refunding. 

4,300,000 

28,021 

16,124 

1898 

Municipal  Improvements. 

4,500,000 

21,589 

23,243 

Municipal  Credit. 
The  status  of  municipal  credit  at  the  beginning  of  the 
period  under  review  is  strikingly  indicated  by  the  circum- 

^  For  many  of  the  data  I  am  indebted  to  a  memorandum  fur- 
nished me  by  Dr.  Fabian  Franklin  of  Baltimore. 

The  defeated  loans  were  a  Jones'  Falls  Improvement  issue  of 
$1,500,000  in  1874  and  a  Municipal  Improvements  issue  of  $4,500,000 
in  1898. 


348  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

stances  attending  the  purchase  of  Druid  Hill  Park  in  1860/ 
Under  ordinary  conditions,  however,  the  city  was  able,  as 
in  the  preceding  decade,  to  negotiate  at  par  a  six  per  cent, 
bond  running  for  a  period  of  thirty  or  forty  years.  The 
quick  succession  of  large  funded  loans,  the  urgent  need  of 
ready  money  for  bounty  payments  and  public  defence,  and 
the  reckless  character  of  municipal  financiering  during  and 
immediately  after  the  Civil  War  brought  local  credit  to 
probably  the  lowest  point  in  the  history  of  the  city.  A  six 
per  cent,  long  term  bond  remained  in  use,  but  in  actual 
negotiation  and  in  open  sale  it  was  subject  to  large  and 
fluctuating  discounts.  With  municipal  reorganization  in 
1867,  municipal  credit  revived.  In  1870  the  Commission- 
ers of  Finance  bought  six  per  cent,  city  stock  for  the  sink- 
ing funds  at  93.79  and  in  1871  at  95.94.  Municipal  credit 
suffered  keenly  in  the  panic  of  1873;  but  before  the  close 
of  1874  the  six  per  cent,  securities  of  the  city  were  selling 
practically  at  par.  In  1877  a  $5,000,000  five  per  cent,  re- 
funding loan  was  negotiated  at  slightly  better  than  par,  and 
three  years  later  further  issues  of  similar  securities  were 
overbid  four  and  five  times  and  netted  premiums  ranging 
from  nine  to  nearly  fifteen  per  cent.*  The  use  of  a  four  and 
a  half  per  cent,  par  bond  had  been  suggested  by  Mayor 
F.  C.  Latrobe  in  his  message  of  January  i,  1880;  but  suc- 
ceeding loans  were  actually  issued  at  four,  three  and  sixty- 
five  hundredths,  and  three  and  a  half  per  cent.  In  1882 
four  per  cent,  bonds  were  sold  at  something  better  than 
103,  and  in  1885  the  ability  of  the  city  to  float  a  three  and 
sixty-five  hundredths  per  cent,  bond  at  par  had  become  es- 
tablished. In  1887  the  last  named  securities  were  negoti- 
ated at  104!/^,  and  thereafter  a  three  and  a  half  per  cent, 
bond  was  employed  by  the  city.  The  terms  upon  which 
the  important  loans  of  the  succeeding  decade  were  negoti- 
ated revealed  the  same  continuous  improvement.     Three 

^  Cf.  above,  p.  310. 

*  Report  of  Department  of  Finance,  December  31,  1880. 


THE    FINANCES    OF   BALTIMORE   CITY,    1857-1897       349 

and  a  half  per  cent,  bonds,  running  forty  and  fifty  years, 
realized  103.25  in  1890,  and  105.23  in  1896.^ 

One  of  the  most  important  influences  responsible  for  the 
extraordinary  decline  in  the  net  rate  at  which  the  city  was 
able  to  fund  its  later  loans  was  the  peculiarly  attractive 
character  of  such  securities,  as  a  form  of  investment,  to 
Maryland  corporations.  This  arose  from  the  facts  (i)  that 
the  city  did  not  tax  its  own  stock  and  furthermore  paid  the 
state  tax  imposed  thereon;  (2)  that  the  taxable  basis  of 
corporations  was  determined  by  deducting  from  their  capi- 
tal stock  the  value  of  their  investments.  In  consequence 
to  the  extent  which  a  corporation  owned  city  stock,  it  was 
released  from  both  state  and  municipal  taxation.  The 
terms  actually  realized  by  the  city  in  the  negotiation  of  its 
later  loans  was  thus  not  an  entirely  accurate  gauge  of  muni- 
cipal credit." 

^  In  i8q8  the  same  securities  were  sold  by  the  city  at  the  phe- 
nomenal rates  of  110.27  ($250,000)  and  116.27  ($250,000). 

'  The  later  loans  were  taken  upon  prohibitive  terms  almost  ex- 
clusively by  the  financial  corporations  of  Baltimore,  and  "  One  of 
the  most  noticeable  features  of  the  daily  transfers  of  city  stock  is  the 
fact  that  individual  holders  are  steadily  disposing  of  their  stock, 
which  is  being  absorbed  by  the  banks,  trust  companies  and  other 
corporations  "  (Report  of  City  Register,  January  3,  1899). 


PART  V 

THE  PRESENT  FINANCIAL  CONDITION  OF 
BALTIMORE 

CHAPTER  I 

innriCTPAIi  FINANCES  IN  1897. 

The  year  1897  represented  the  last  period  in  the  financial 
history  of  Baltimore  under  the  old  municipal  organization. 
The  new  city  charter  was  granted  in  March,  1898,  and  cer- 
tain of  its  most  important  features  went  into  effect  imme- 
diately thereafter.  The  bitter  struggle  between  Mayor  and 
City  Council,  referred  to  below ,^  affected  administrative  ac- 
tivity rather  than  financial  procedure  during  1897,  and  the 
financial  experience  of  the  year  can  be  regarded  as  fairly 
typical  of  the  period  which  it  was  destined  to  terminate. 

The  municipal  budget  was  prepared  by  the  joint  Ways  and 
Means  Committee  and  presented  to  the  City  Council  in  the 
early  summer,  in  the  usual  form  of  a  general  appropriation 
bill  and  a  series  of  tax  levy  ordinances.  Few  changes  were 
made  by  the  Council  and  the  ordinances  were  approved  on 
July  2,  1897. 

The  appropriation  bill  contained  270  items,  arranged  in 
21  departmental  groups  and  aggregating  $7,429,149.57. 
Estimates  for  the  "Annex  "  were  in  every  case  distinguished 
from  those  designed  for  the  city  proper.     The  greater  part 

'  Page  356. 
(351) 


352  ■  THE   FINANCIAL  HISTORY   OF   BALTIMORE 

of  the  appropriation  to  the  Inspector  of  Buildings  was 
for  the  construction  of  school  buildings.  With  this  ex- 
ception the  bill  provided  for  the  mere  "  operating  expenses  " 
of  the  city  government,  and  left  extraordinary  disburse- 
ments to  be  met  from  out  the  proceeds  of  funded  loans. 

The  levy  ordinances  were  fifteen  in  number  and  imposed 
a  total  tax  on  general  property  of  $2.00  on  every  $100,  The 
estimated  taxable  basis  was  $278,500,000  and  the  estimated 
proportion  of  taxes  collectable,  73  per  cent. — making  the 
assumed  yield  within  the  year  $4,066,100.  The  statutory 
rates  established  by  the  reassessment  act  of  1896  were 
levied  upon  bonds  and  securities  and  upon  mortgages ; '  the 
estimated  receipts  from  these  two  sources  were  $129,000 
and  $10,000,  respectively.  The  estimated  receipts  from 
sources  other  than  property  taxation  were  $3,343,090.30, 
making  the  total  estimated  revenues  for  the  year  $7,548,- 
190.30. 

A  distinctive  feature  of  the  finances  of  1897 — due  in  part 
to  the  vigilance  of  the  city  executive,  in  part  to  the  differ- 
ences between  the  two  branches  of  the  city  government — 
was  the  practical  absence  of  special  appropriation  bills. 
The  budget  included,  under  the  head  of  General  Expendi- 
tures, an  item  of  $36,100  subject  to  disbursement  by  special 
ordinances  and  resolutions;  no  other  appropriation  was 
made,  after  the  passage  of  the  budget,  save  from  out  this 
fund.  Expenditures  and  receipts,  estimated  and  actual,  for 
the  fiscal  year  are  shown  in  the  following  statements : 

EXPENDITURES. 

Budget  Actual 

Appropriation.       Expenditures. 

Inspector  of  Buildings  $266,531.56  $223,148.76 

Street  Cleaning 389,392.05  374,47S-90 

General  Superintendent  of  Lamps 411,807.50  401,676.87 

Harbor  Commission   76,362.79  70,540.34 

Health  Department 80,000.00  89,154.59 

Fire  Department  460,650.00  469,696.29 

City  Commissioner  221,557.13  224,805.21 

City  Collector   58,700.00  59,088.14 

^  See  above,  p.  258. 


PRESENT   FINANCIAL   CONDITION   OF   BALTIMORE      353 

Budget  Actual 

Appropriation.  Expenditures. 

Commissioners  for  Opening  Streets 10,100.00  9,979.61 

Liquor  License  Commissioners   15,000.00  14,608.44 

Supervisors  of  Elections  81,800.00  77,183.98 

General  Expenditures  464,208.20  421,236.26 

City  Library  8,299.54  8,212.94 

Superintendent  of  Public  Buildings 41,900.00  41,870.54 

Schools    1,273,998.00  1,253,274.67 

Police  Department  837,270.00  837,270.00 

City  Poor   383,250.00  374,581.42 

Certain  Expenses   226,800.00  237,020.81 

Interest  on  Stock  Debt  1,447,287.00  1,447,287.00 

Opening  Streets   163,910.43  163,910.43 

Sinking  Funds 510,325.37  467,470.31 

Total    $7,429,149.57  $7,266,492.51 

Excess  of  budget  appropriations  over  ac- 
tual expenditures    166,457.06 

REVENUES. 

Estimated  Receipts.  Actual  Receipts. 

Tax  on  General  Property  (in  City) $4,066,100.00  $3,672,089.04 

Tax  on  General  Property  (in  Annex)...      147,400.00  189,502.58 

Tax  on  Bonds  and  Securities 129,000.00  142,907.82 

Tax  on  Income  from   Mortgages 10,000.00  4,717.06 

Taxes  in  Arrears   1,753,000.00  1,644,526.05 

Share  of  State  School  Tax 210,635.00  214,618.29 

Special  Income  for  Interest  on   Funded 

Debt'    554,051.04  554,051.04 

License  Taxes: 

Liquor  400,000.00  410,239.93 

General    65,000.00  65,831.83 

Markets    45,000.00  53,215.66 

Wharves    20,000.00  24,910.57 

Fees   23,700.00  27,002.34 

Surplus  from  Previous  Year  84,968.46  84,968.46 

Miscellaneous    39,33S-8o  46,772. 16 

Total    $7,548,190.30  $7,139,412.74 

Excess  of  estimated  over  actual  receipts.     408,777.56 

The  excess  of  estimated  over  actual  receipts  was  $408,- 
777.56,  increased  by  minor  items  to  $410,052.90.     Against 


*  Derived  as  follows:    Water  Board,  $313,984.75;   Park   Board, 
$33,287.50;  Western  Maryland  Railroad  Company,  $82,740.00;  Com- 
missioners of  Finance  (from  sinking  funds),  $124,038.79. 
w 


354  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

this  potential  deficit  were  credited  the  excess  of  estimated 
receipts  over  appropriations,  $115,240.73;  the  excess  of  ap- 
propriations over  actual  payments,  $166,457.06,  and  bal- 
ances from  closed  accounts  $9,238.55.  The  actual  treas- 
ury deficit  for  the  year  was  thus  $119,116.56.^ 

The  budget  made  no  provision  for  the  maintenance  of 
the  water  works  and  the  public  parks,  and  assumed  no  in- 
come from  water  rentals  and  the  franchise  tax  on  street 
railways — the  sources  of  income  devoted  to  the  support  of 
these  fiscally  independent  branches  of  municipal  service. 
Similarly,  imperfect  account  was  taken  of  expenditure  and 
revenue  on  account  of  street  paving  or  street  reconstruction, 
the  costs  of  which  were  partially  defrayed  by  the  levy  of 
special  assessments. 

The  total  net  collections  of  the  water  department  were 
$800,706.16,  out  of  which  were  paid  $313,984.75  as  interest 
on  outstanding  "water  bonds";  $189,994.40  as  the  operat- 
ing expenses  of  the  department;  $140,000  as  a  surplus  to 
the  Commissioners  of  Finance,  and  the  remaining  $156,- 
727.01,  for  the  extension  of  water  supply  and  for  minor  out- 
lays. The  total  receipts  of  the  Park  Commission  were  $271,- 
834.81,  of  which  $263,040.47  was  derived  from  the  fran- 
chise tax  on  street  railways.  Of  this  aggregate,  $33,287.50 
was  paid  to  the  Commissioners  of  Finance  for  interest  upon 
the  "  park  debt,"  and  the  remaining  amount,  with  the  ex- 
ception of  a  small  balance  of  $4,243.91,  was  devoted  to  the 
maintenance  of  the  public  parks  and  squares.  Expendi- 
tures for  street  reconstruction  for  the  year  were  $245,263.16, 
of  which  $163,910,43  was  "assessed  upon  the  city";  and 
$85,865.61  was  obtained  by  special  assessment.  The  ex- 
penditures for  street  paving  were  $39,447.26  and  the  re- 
ceipts from  the  special  assessment,  $45,638.08.  In  both 
cases  unexpended  balances  were  left  to  the  credit  of  par- 
ticular accounts. 

^  The  "  floating  debt "  for  which  provision  was  made  in  the  City 
Register's  estimate  of  expenditures  for  1898  was  $239,902.45.  The 
discrepancy  is  traceable  to  certain  existing  claims  against  the  city 
of  which  no  account  was  taken  in  the  budget  of  1897. 


PRESENT    FINANCIAL    CONDITION    OF    BALTIMORE       355 

Extraordinary  expenditures  to  the  amount  of  $1,329,- 
786.89  were  made  from  out  the  proceeds  of  the  three  com- 
posite loans  of  1888,  1892  and  1894,  as  follows:  Enlarge- 
ment of  water  supply,  $717,021.26;  court  house,  $463,177.- 
II;  water  sewers,  $84,250.61;  paving  streets,  $29,298.62; 
bridges,  $26,459.32;  school  houses  and  lots,  $9,579.97. 

The  increase  of  the  funded  and  guaranteed  debt  during 
the  year  was  from  $33,502,018.43  to  $36,170,576.95,  or 
$2,668,558.52,  This  increase  is  accounted  for  by  the  issue 
of  $1,453,300  of  the  funding  loan  of  1896  and  $1,219,800  of 
the  municipal  improvement  loans  of  1892  and  1894,  and  by 
redemptions  to  the  amount  of  $4,541.48.  Temporary  loans 
were  made  and  repaid  to  the  amount  of  $3,938,000..  The 
net  increment  of  the  sinking  funds  during  the  year  was 
$858,559.64.  The  condition  of  municipal  credit  was  indi- 
cated by  the  sale  by  public  advertisement  of  $1,453,000  of 
three  and  a  half,  forty-year  bonds  at  105.77. 

The  funded  and  guaranteed  debt  bore  interest  at  rates 
varying  from  six  to  three  per  cent.,  distributed  as  follows: 
$4,975,000  at  6  per  cent. ;  $7,237,000  at  5  per  cent. ;  $3,484,- 
000  at  4  per  cent.;  $18,168,200  at  35^  per  cent.;  $483,000 
at  3^^^  per  cent.;  $1,704,000  at  3^  per  cent.;  $100,000  at 
3  per  cent.;  on  $19,376.95  overdue,  no  interest  was 
allowed.  Of  the  total  debt,  $5,175,000  matures  in  1900; 
$1,850,000  in  1902-1904;  $6,280,000  in  1916;  $9,688,000  in 
1920-1928;  $6,453,300  in  1936;  $5,284,400  in  1940;  $1,420,- 
500  in  1945. 


CHAPTER  II 


TSE  NEW  CHAHTEB. 


The  completion  of  a  century  of  corporate  existence  was 
practically  coincident,  in  the  municipal  history  of  Baltimore, 
with  the  beginning  of  agitation  for  the  revision  of  the  obso- 
lete instrument  of  government  under  which  the  greater 
part  of  that  hundred  years  had  been  spent.  The  imme- 
diate cause  of  dissatisfaction  was  the  high-handed  action  of 
the  City  Council  in  1896  in  attempting  to  take  away  the 
entire  appointing  power  of  a  non-partisan  Mayor  and  vest- 
ing it  in  the  legislative  branch  of  the  city  government/ 
This  revolutionary  procedure — made  possible  by  the  feat- 
ures of  the  city  charter  permitting  the  corporation  to  pass 
ordinances  regulating  the  manner  of  appointing  its  officials, 
and  allowing  the  City  Council  by  a  three-fourths  vote  to 
pass  ordinances  over  the  Mayor's  veto — was  ultimately  de- 
feated by  the  decisions  of  the  Court  of  Appeals/  But  the 
incidental  revelation  of  the  possibilities  for  evil  inherent  in 
the  old  municipal  organization,  as  well  as  the  actual  loss  and 
embarrassment  occasioned  to  city  aflfairs  left  a  deep  impress 
upon  public  sentiment. 

Intelligent  discussion  as  to  the  desirability  and  form  of 
municipal  reorganization  culminated  in  the  passage  of  an 
ordinance  in  November,  1896,  authorizing  the  newly  elected 
city  executive.  Mayor  William  T.  Malster,  to  appoint  an 
unpaid  commission  of  eight  persons  to  draft  a  new  charter 
for  the  city  of  Baltimore,  to  be  submitted  to  the  General 
Assembly  for  enactment  at  the  current  session.*    Mayor 

*  For  details  of  this  remarkable  incident,  see  a  statement  by  the 
writer  in  "  Notes  on  Municipal  Government "  in  Annals  of  American 
Academy  of  Political  and  Social  Science,  May,  1896. 

*  Creager  vs.  Hooper,  83  Md.  490;  Hooper  vs.  Creager,  84  Md.  195. 

*  Ordinance  of  November  24,  1897. 

(356) 


PRESENT   FINANCIAL   CONDITION    OF   BALTIMORE       357 

Malster  at  once  appointed  a  model  "  New  Charter  Commis-' 
sion,"  incidentally  arousing  by  the  excellence  of  his  selec- 
tions widespread  anticipation  of  a  reform  administration. 
The  personnel  of  the  commission  was  as  follows:  Hon. 
William  Pinkney  Whyte,  who  had  served  acceptably  as 
Mayor  of  Baltimore  and  as  Governor  of  Maryland;  Hon. 
Ferdinand  C.  Latrobe,  who  enjoyed  the  distinction  of  hav- 
ing been  seven  times  elected  to  the  mayoralty  and  was 
in  intimate  acquaintance  with  every  phase  of  municipal  de- 
velopment; Dr.  Daniel  C.  Gilman,  President  of  the  Johns 
Hopkins  University;  Mr.  Samuel  D.  Schmucker,  and  Mr. 
George  R.  Gaither,  Jr.,  skilled  members  of  the  bar;  City 
Solicitor  Thomas  I.  Elliott;  City  Councillor  Thomas  G. 
Hayes,  and  City  Attorney  Lewis  Putzel.^ 

It  is  within  bounds  to  state  that  difficulty  would  be 
experienced  in  attempting  to  select  eight  other  citizens  of 
Baltimore  as  familiar  with  the  defects  of  the  local  political 
framework,  or  better  fitted  to  suggest  measures  of  improve- 
ment. Both  political  parties  were  represented,  but  the 
commission  was  non-partisan  rather  than  bi-partisan.  It 
at  once  commanded  public  confidence  and  respect  and  the 
course  of  subsequent  events  in  no  wise  modified  this  atti- 
tude. No  serious  charge  was  at  any  time  made  that  parti- 
san interest  or  unworthy  motive  determined  any  feature  of 
the  new  instrument. 

The  time  available  for  the  completion  of  the  work  was 
little  more  than  three  months;  but  by  intelligent  division  of 
labor,  harmonious  co-operation,  and  extraordinary  industry 
and  application,  a  new  charter  was  drafted  within  that 
period.  It  was  submitted  to  the  General  Assembly  for  en- 
actment in  the  closing  weeks  of  the  legislative  session,  to- 
gether with  a  codification  of  existing  laws.  The  whole 
formed  a  volume  of  350  printed  octavo  pages,  and  the 
mere  bulk  of  the  proposed  legislation  served  as  its  most 
effective  guard  against  mutilation.  An  effort  of  the  City 
Council  to  "  revise  "  the  work  of  the  charter  commission 

^  Mr.  Frederick  T.  Dorton  served  as  secretary  of  the  commission. 


358  THE   FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

was  defeated,  and  on  March  24,  1898,  the  charter  was  en- 
acted into  statute  law  in  practically  unchanged  form/ 

The  new  charter  represents  a  conservative  adaptation  of 
accepted  principles  of  municipal  reform  to  local  require- 
ments and  established  usages.  In  few  respects  has  there 
been  any  complete  or  radical  departure  from  the  administra- 
tive forms  to  which  the  citizens  of  Baltimore  have  been  ac- 
customed for  a  century.  On  the  other  hand,  recognized 
elements  of  municipal  improvement  have  been  boldly  in- 
corporated, and  the  influence  of  modern  municipal  reor- 
ganization in  the  United  States,  notably  in  New  York  City, 
has  been  decided.  The  fundamental  principles  which  con- 
sciously governed  the  commission  in  the  preparation  of  the 
charter  were: 

1.  Association  of  related  branches  of  municipal  service 
into  single  departments. 

2,  Concentration  of  powers  of  appointment  and  removal 
in  the  hands  of  the  Mayor,  with  location  of  definite  respon- 
sibility upon  all  public  officials. 

3,.  Minority  representation  in  all  departmental  boards, 

4.  Separation  of  municipal  from  state  and  federal  elec- 
tions. 

5.  Appointment  of  experts  in  all  departments  requiring 
professional  knowledge  and  skill. 

6.  Grant  of  public  franchises  to  the  highest  bidder,  for  a 
limited  term,  subject  to  municipal  regulation  and  control. 

7.  Check  upon  municipal  expenditure  and  prevention  of 
floating  indebtedness. 

8.  Removal  of  the  public  school  system  from  all  possible 
political  influence. 

9.  Public  supervision  of  the  indigent  sick  and  poor  while 
subjects  of  municipal  aid. 

^  Accompanying  the  charter  and  recommended  by  the  charter 
commission  were  two  supplementary  bills,  limiting  the  bonded  in- 
debtedness of  the  city  to  seven  per  cent,  of  its  taxable  basis  and 
providing  for  the  receipt  by  the  city  of  the  entire  proceeds  of  the 
liquor  license  taxes  imposed  in  the  city.  Neither  of  these  measures 
passed.  The  formal  reference  to  the  new  charter  is  "  Laws  of 
Maryland,"  1898,  ch.  123. 


PRESENT    FINANCIAL   CONDITION    OF    BALTIMORE       359 

The  charter  retains  the  traditional  corporate  framework 
— a  Mayor  and  a  bicameral  Council.  The  term  of  the 
Mayor  is  extended  from  two  to  four  years,  and  his  salary 
is  also  increased  to  $6000.  He  possesses  a  veto  power 
over  all  ordinances  of  the  City  Council,  which  can  be  over- 
ridden by  a  vote  of  three-fourths  of  all  members  of  each 
Branch. 

The  City  Council  consists,  as  before,  of  two  chambers, 
designated  as  the  First  Branch  and  the  Second  Branch, 
respectively.  The  lower  chamber,  or  First  Branch,  remains 
constituted  of  one  member  from  each  of  the  twenty-four 
wards  of  the  city;  but  the  term  has  been  extended  from 
one  to  two  years.  The  upper  chamber,  or  Second  Branch, 
heretofore  composed  of  one  member  elected  for  two  years 
from  every  two  contiguous  wards,  has  undergone  important 
modification.  The  city  is  now  divided  into  four  "  council- 
manic  districts," — consisting  of  six  contiguous  wards  in 
numerical  succession — from  each  of  which  two  Councilmen 
are  elected  to  the  Second  Branch.  Their  term  of  office  is 
increased  from  two  to  four  years,  so  arranged  that  one-half 
of  the  entire  body  retires  every  second  year.  The  Presi- 
dent of  the  Second  Branch  of  the  City  Council  is  made  an 
independent  official  with  the  same  property  qualification  as 
the  Mayor  ($2000).  He  receives  a  salary  of  $3,000  per 
annum  and  is  elected  for  a  term  of  four  years.  The  prop- 
erty qualifications  of  the  Councilmen  remain  unchanged  at 
$300  for  the  First  Branch  and  $500  for  the  Second  Branch; 
but  these  provisions  are  made  eflfective  by  the  requirement 
that  taxes  must  have  been  paid  thereon  for  one  and  two 
years,  respectively,  prior  to  election.  Municipal  elections 
are  fixed,  distinct  from  federal  and  state  elections,  on  the 
Tuesday  next  after  the  first  Monday  in  May,  and  are  pre- 
ceded by  a  supplementary  registration  of  voters.^ 

*  The  first  election  under  the  new  charter  occurs  on  May  2,  1899. 
The  new  Mayor  will  not,  however,  enter  into  office  until  November 
IS,  1899,  when  the  full  term  for  which  the  present  Mayor  was  elected 
expires.  This  involves  an  awkward  "  hold-over "  of  some  six 
months. 


360  THE   FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

All  administrative  branches  of  the  city  government  are 
arranged  into  departments  and  sub-divided  into  sub-depart- 
ments; the  heads  of  both  departments  and  sub-departments 
are  appointed  by  the  Mayor.  Regard  for  local  conserva- 
tism unfortunately  prevented  the  commission  from  vesting 
the  power  of  absolute  appointment  in  the  Mayor;  but  the 
right  of  confirmation  is  transferred  from  the  joint  conven- 
tion of  the  two  chambers  to  the  Second  Branch  of  the  City 
Council.  The  Mayor  can  remove  any  of  his  appointees 
without  cause  within  the  first  six  months  of  their  term  of 
office;  thereafter  only  by  preferring  charges  and  after  trial. 
The  heads  of  departments  and  sub-departments  are  given 
absolute  power  of  appointing  and  removing  subordinates. 
The  heads  of  departments  are  also  given  the  privilege  of 
the  floor  of  the  First  Branch  of  the  City  Council,  with  the 
right  to  participate  in  the  discussion  of  matters  relating  to 
their  respective  departments,  but  without  power  to  vote. 

The  administrative  branches  of  the  city  government  are 
organized  into  eight  departments:  (i)  Finance,  (2)  Law, 
(3)  Public  Safety,  (4)  PubHc  Improvements,  (5)  Public 
Parks  and  Squares,  (6)  Education,  (7)  Charities  and  Cor- 
rections, (8)  Review  and  Assessments.  Under  these  are 
logically  arranged  as  sub-departments  the  essential  agencies 
of  municipal  service.  In  control  of  each  department  is  a 
board,  composed  of  the  heads  of  its  sub-departments.  These 
boards  are  ordinarily  designed  for  consultation  and  advice 
and  possess  no  power  to  direct  or  control  the  duties  or  work 
of  the  sub-departments. 

The  sub-departments  represent,  with  one  or  two  note- 
worthy exceptions,  existing  municipal  departments.  Com- 
plexity has  been  reduced  and  contradictions  and  duplica- 
tions eliminated;  but  the  purpose  of  the  charter  is  through- 
out to  eflfect  maximum  improvement  with  a  minimum 
wrench. 

(i).  The  Department  of  Finance  is  composed  of  six  sub- 
departments:  (a)  Comptroller,  (b)  City  Register,  (c)  City 
Collector,  (d)  Collector  of  Water  Rents  and  Licenses,  (e) 


PRESENT   FINANCIAL    CONDITION    OF   BALTIMORE       36I 

Commissioners  of  Finance,  (f)  Board  of  Estimates.  The 
first  four  officials  and  the  presidents  of  the  remaining 
boards  constitute  a  Board  of  Finance,  in  nominal  control  of 
the  department.  No  changes  are  made  in  the  appointment 
and  duties  of  the  Register,  the  Collector  and  the  Commis- 
sioners of  Finance.  The  Comptroller  is  to  be  elected  by 
popular  vote  for  a  term  of  four  years,  but  may  be  removed 
upon  charges  preferred  by  the  Mayor  by  a  majority  vote  of 
the  Second  Branch  of  the  City  Council.  The  Board  of 
Estimates  is  an  entirely  new  institution  and  is  described  be- 
low.^ The  Collector  of  Water  Rents  and  Licenses  is 
charged  with  the  duties  indicated  by  his  title,  before  vested 
in  the  Water  Department  and  the  Comptroller,  respectively. 

(2).  The  Department  of  Law  is  under  the  direction  of  a 
City  Solicitor  who  receives  a  salary  of  $4000  per  annum. 
He  is  appointed  by  the  Mayor,  and  in  turn  appoints  a  First, 
Second,  and  Third  Assistant  City  Solicitor.  Provision  is 
made  for  the  permanent  organization  of  the  department. 

(3).  The  Department  of  Public  Safety  includes  four  sub- 
departments:  (a)  Board  of  Fire  Commissioners,  (b)  Com- 
missioner of  Health,  (c)  Inspector  of  Buildings,  (d)  Com- 
missioner of  Street  Cleaning.  The  last  three  officials,  the 
President  of  the  Board  of  Fire  Commissioners,  and  ex-oMcio 
the  President  of  the  Board  of  Police  Commissioners  con- 
stitute the  Board  of  Public  Safety,  whose  functions  are 
nominal.  No  change  is  made  in  the  Board  of  Fire  Com- 
missioners, the  Inspector  of  Buildings  and  the  Commis- 
sioner of  Street  Cleaning,  other  than  vesting  all  subordi- 
nate appointments  in  the  heads  of  the  respective  sub-depart- 
ments. The  Commissioner  of  Health  absorbs  the  duties  of 
the  old  Board  of  Health  and  is  placed  in  full  charge  of  the 
sanitary  care  of  the  city. 

(4).  The  Department  of  Public  Improvements  consists 
of  four  sub-departments:  (a)  City  Engineer,  (b)  Inspector  of 
Buildings,  (c)  Water  Board,  (d)  Harbor  Board.  At  the 
head  of  the  department  is  a  Board  of  Public  Improvements 

*  Page  363. 


362  THE    FINANCIAL    HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

composed  of  the  first  two  officials  and  the  presidents  of  the 
two  boards.  The  important  duties  of  this  board  are  de- 
scribed in  connection  with  budgetary  procedure/  The  City 
Engineer  replaces  the  old  City  Commissioner  in  the  care 
of  public  streets  and  roadways.  The  Water  Board  and  the 
Harbor  Board  are  each  composed  of  five  members  of  whom 
four  are  unsalaried;  the  fifth,  a  skilled  engineer,  receives  a 
salary  of  $4000  per  annum  and  serves  as  president. 

(5).  The  Department  of  Public  Parks  and  Squares  is 
under  the  control  of  a  Board  of  Park  Commissioners,  com- 
posed of  five  unsalaried  members,  in  whom  are  vested  the 
duties  both  of  the  old  park  commission  and  of  the  inde- 
pendent commissioners  of  squares. 

(6).  The  administration  of  the  public  school  system  un- 
dergoes wholesome  reconstruction.  The  existing  board  of 
twenty-two  ward  commissioners,  appointed  by  the  City 
Council,  is  replaced  by  a  smaller  body  of  nine  commission- 
ers, appointed  at  large  by  the  Mayor  for  a  term  of  six  years ; 
one-third  of  the  new  board  retires  every  two  years.  This 
body  in  turn  appoints  a  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruc- 
tion, six  or  more  Assistant  Superintendents,  and  a  number 
of  unpaid  School  Visitors. 

(7).  The  Department  of  Charities  and  Corrections  con- 
sists of  the  Supervisors  of  City  Charities  and  the  Visitors  to 
the  City  Jail.  The  president  and  one  other  member  of  each 
body,  together  with  the  Mayor  ex-oMcio  constitute  the 
Board  of  Charities  and  Corrections,  with  mere  consulting 
and  advisory  powers.  The  Supervisors  of  City  Charities 
replace  the  Trustees  of  the  Poor  and  form  an  unsalaried 
board  of  nine  members  appointed  for  a  term  of  six  years; 
three  members  of  the  board  retire  every  second  year.  The 
Supervisors  are  vested  with  broad  powers  relative  to  the 
municipal  care  of  dependent  and  defective  classes.  In  lieu 
of  the  system  of  municipal  subsidies  to  private  institutions 
the  city  hereafter  pays  a  contract  price  for  public  charges 
placed  in  such  institutions,  and  the  Supervisors  are  given 

^  See  below,  p.  364. 


PRESENT   FINANCIAL   CONDITION   OF   BALTIMORE      363 

full  control  over  such  persons  while  in  receipt  of  public  aid. 
The  conduct  of  the  city  jail  is  vested  in  an  unsalaried  board 
of  nine  Visitors  to  the  Jail. 

(8).  The  Department  of  Review  and  Assessment  is  com- 
posed of  the  Appeal  Tax  Court  and  the  Commissioners  for 
Opening  Streets.  The  corresponding  departmental  board 
consists  of  the  presidents  of  the  two  sub-departments  and 
the  Mayor  ex-ofUcio.  The  term  of  ofHce  of  the  three  Judges 
of  the  Appeal  Tax  Court  is  extended  to  three  years,  one 
member  retiring  every  year.  The  Court  is  authorized  to 
appoint  such  number  of  assessors  as  the  city  by  ordinance 
may  direct.  A  similar  change  is  made  in  the  tenure  of  the 
three  Commissioners  for  Opening  Streets. 

(9).  Certain  unclassified  administrative  departments  are 
left  essentially  unchanged,  save  as  afifected  by  the  general 
principles  of  departmental  responsibility  already  noted. 
These  minor  independent  departments  are:  (a)  City  Li- 
brarian, (b)  Art  Commission,  (c)  Superintendent  of  Lamps 
and  Lighting,  (d)  Surveyor,  (e)  Constables,  (f)  Superinten- 
dent of  Public  Buildings,  (g)  Public  Printer. 

Radical  change  has  been  made  in  the  financial  procedure 
of  the  municipality,  largely  in  line  with  the  corresponding 
features  of  the  charter  of  Greater  New  York.  The  munici- 
pal budget  was  formerly  prepared  and  submitted  to  the 
City  Council,  it  will  be  remembered,  by  a  joint  Ways  and 
Means  Committee  of  the  two  chambers.  The  new  charter 
provides  for  the  creation  of  a  Board  of  Estimates,  com- 
posed of  the  Mayor,  the  City  Solicitor,  representing  the 
Department  of  Law;  the  Comptroller,  representing  the  De- 
partment of  Finance;  the  President  of  the  Second  Branch 
of  the  City  Council,  representing  the  legislative  department, 
and  the  City  Engineer,  representing  the  Department  of 
Public  Improvements.  The  Board  of  Estimates  is  required 
to  prepare  and  submit  to  the  City  Council  in  October  of 
each  year  a  precise  estimate  of  the  necessary  appropria- 
tions for  the  next  ensuing  fiscal  year,  arranged  in  three  dis- 
tinct lists:  (a)  "  departmental  estimates,"  or  the  amounts  re- 


364  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

quired  for  conducting  the  several  branches  of  ordinary  mu- 
nicipal service  during  the  ensuing  fiscal  year;  (b)  "  estimates 
for  new  improvements,"  or  the  amounts  required  during 
the  year  for  new  improvements  recommended  by  the  heads 
of  various  departments  and  sub-departments;  (c)  "  estimates 
for  annual  appropriations,"  or  the  amounts  required,  in 
accordance  with  existing  legislation,  for  charitable,  educa- 
tional and  other  purposes/ 

The  City  Council  may  reduce  but  not  increase  the  sev- 
eral amounts  fixed  by  the  Board  of  Estimates,  and  may  not 
insert  any  new  items,  nor  subsequently  divert  any  appro- 
priation from  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  originally  de- 
signed. In  the  same  manner,  the  Board  of  Estimates  is  re- 
quired to  submit  to  the  City  Council  an  estimate  of  the 
annual  tax  levy,  which  may  be  increased  but  not  reduced  by 
that  body/  Any  ordinance  authorizing  a  public  improve- 
ment, to  exceed  in  cost  the  sum  of  $2000  and  not  in- 
cluded in  the  annual  estimates  submitted  by  the  Board 
of  Estimates,  must  be  referred  after  its  first  reading  in 
either  branch  of  the  City  Council,  to  the  Board  of  Public 
Improvements,  for  report  as  to  its  desirability,  and  to  the 
Board  of  Estimates,  for  report  as  to  the  ability  of  the  mu- 
nicipal treasury  to  meet  the  expenditure,  and  no  ordinance 
can  become  valid  until  both  of  these  reports  have  been  re- 
ceived. Contracts  for  municipal  work  and  for  the  purchase 
of  municipal  supplies,  involving  an  expenditure  of  $500  or 
more,  can  only  be  made  after  public  advertisement  and 
award  to  the  lowest  bidder  by  a  board  composed  of  the 
Mayor,  the  Comptroller,  the  City  Register,  the  City  So- 
licitor, and  the  President  of  the  Second  Branch  of  the  City 
Council. 

The  danger  of  floating  indebtedness  is  reduced  by  the 
provision  that  no  temporary  loans  shall  be  authorized  save 
in  anticipation  of  the  receipts  of  taxes  levied  for  the  cur- 

^  The  sum  of  $50,000  is  annually  included  as  a  contingent  fund. 
'  Municipal  taxes  are  payable  within  the  first  six  months  of  each 
year  and  become  subject  to  interest  penalties  thereafter. 


PRESENT   FINANCIAL   CONDITION   OF   BALTIMORE      365 

rent  year.  In  case  municipal  revenue  is  insufficient  in  any 
year,  there  must  be  a  pro  rata  abatement  of  all  appropria- 
tions, except  those  fixed  by  statute,  and  any  surplus  ac- 
cruing must  be  credited  to  the  general  sinking  fund. 

A  salutary  provision  of  the  new  charter  relates  to  the 
disposition  of  municipal  franchises.  Grants  of  specific 
franchises  or  rights  in  or  relating  to  public  property  are 
limited  to  a  term  of  twenty-five  years,  subject  upon  revalua- 
tion to  successive  renewals  for  a  not  longer  period.  The 
compensation  to  be  paid  for  all  public  franchises  is  deter- 
mined after  public  advertisement  by  the  Board  of  Esti- 
mates, and  the  City  Council  may  not  change  the  terms  so 
fixed.  In  all  grants  the  municipality  may  reserve  the 
right  to  resume  control  of  the  plant,  with  or  without  further 
compensation,  upon  the  termination  of  the  franchise  period. 

Viewed  in  its  entirety,  the  new  charter  is  an  efficient  in- 
strument of  government,  eminently  creditable  to  the  intelli- 
gence and  discretion  of  its  authors.  In  retaining  a  bi- 
cameral City  Council  and  in  requiring  the  assent  of  the 
Second  Branch  to  the  appointments  of  the  Mayor,  unneces- 
sary concessions  have  perhaps  been  made  to  local  conserv- 
atism. These  are  the  only  instances  of  signal  neglect  of 
accepted  principles  of  municipal  reform,  and  even  here — 
bearing  in  mind  existing  local  conditions — ^the  results  may 
be  very  different  from  those  naturally  to  be  anticipated. 
The  new  charter  may  not  effect  immediate  reformation  in 
local  administration;  but  it  can  hardly  fail,  in  the  reason- 
able phrase  of  the  charter  commission,  to  remedy  "  many  of 
the  faults  of  the  old  law,  and  to  provide  such  a  law  as  will 
naturally  contribute  to  the  future  development  and  pros- 
perity of  the  great  metropolis  of  Maryland." 


CHAPTER  III 

THE  FINANCIAIi  OUTLOOK. 

The  characteristic  feature  of  the  present  financial  condi- 
tion of  Baltimore  is  the  pressure  of  increasing  expenditure 
upon  inelastic  revenue.  The  growth  of  the  city  has  added 
to  the  cost  of  municipal  activity,  and  the  rise  in  social 
consciousness  has  created  a  demand  for  better  service. 
Not  only  has  it  become  more  expensive  to  perform  accus- 
tomed functions  over  a  wider  area  and  for  a  larger  popu- 
lation, but  it  has  been  necessary  to  perform  them  in  a  more 
costly  manner.  The  municipal  budget  must  provide  both 
for  lighting  and  paving  more  streets,  and  for  substituting 
asphalt  blocks  for  cobble  stones  and  electric  lighting  for 
oil  lamps. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  has  been  no  corresponding  in- 
crease in  the  financial  resources  of  the  city.  Municipal 
development  has  brought  with  it  a  less  than  proportionate 
growth  in  original  forms  of  revenue,  and  relatively  few  and 
unimportant  new  sources  have  been  made  available.  In 
consequence  the  municipal  economy  discloses  a  reversal  of 
the  normal  rule  of  public  finance,  and  the  expenditures  of 
the  city,  instead  of  determining,  are  determined  by  its 
revenues. 

Not  only  the  increase  of  current  expenditure,  but  the  in- 
curring of  further  funded  indebtedness  is  checked  by  the 
rigidity  of  municipal  revenue.  Under  existing  conditions 
the  municipal  budget  can  tolerate  scanty  addition  to  the 
present  burdensome  interest  charge.  The  future  decades 
hold  out  no  promise  of  a  fall  in  the  rate  of  interest  upon 
municipal  securities  corresponding  to  the  extraordinary  de- 
cline since  1875.  A  sounder  amortization  policy  will  per- 
mit the  regular  redemption  of  maturing  loans,  but  the  de- 

(366) 


PRESENT   FINANCIAL   CONDITION    OF   BALTIMORE       367 

cline  in  the  interest  rate  and  the  rise  in  market  value  of 
municipal  securities  necessarily  involves  a  slower  accumula- 
tion of  the  sinking  funds. 

The  phenomenal  improvement  in  municipal  credit  in  re- 
cent years  in  no  wise  affects  this  forecast.  As  long  as  the 
ownership  of  city  securities  carries  with  it  exemption  to  that 
extent  from  state  and  municipal  taxation,  the  competition  of 
financial  corporations  will  maintain  city  bonds  at  a  fictitious 
valuation.  The  artificial  demand  thus  created  is  strictly 
limited  in  amount,  and  whenever  municipal  securities  are 
issued  in  excess  of  requirements  for  exemption  purposes,  the 
relapse  in  municipal  credit  will  be  sharp  and  immediate. 

The  insufficiency  of  municipal  revenue  is  made  the  domi- 
nant element  in  the  financial  outlook  of  Baltimore  by  the 
urgent  need  of  larger  municipal  expenditure  in  the  near 
future.  If  the  city  is  to  become  of  increasing  attractiveness 
as  an  industrial  and  residential  centre,  or  even  to  keep  pace 
with  the  general  march  of  urban  improvement  in  the  United 
State,  it  must  within  the  coming  years  spend  and  spend 
largely  for  municipal  improvements. 

The  displacement  of  surface  drainage  by  a  comprehensive 
sewerage  system,  the  protection  and  improvement  of  the 
municipal  water  supply,  the  erection  of  additional  school 
buildings  of  modern  arrangement,  the  extension  of  im- 
proved street  paving  throughout  the  greater  part  of  the 
city — are  all  occasions  for  large  municipal  disbursements 
which  even  the  most  conservative  sentiment  recognizes  as 
imperative  and  incapable  of  long  delay. 

To  those  who  believe  that  the  industrial  city  is  destined 
to  become  a  determining  element  in  social  development  and 
that  the  conditions  of  urban  residence  in  this  generation  will 
shape  the  moral  and  physical  status  of  a  large  social  class 
in  the  next — it  is  no  less  desirable  that  Baltimore  be  pro- 
vided with  additional  parks  and  public  squares,  with  munic- 
ipal baths  and  play-grounds,  and  that  slum  districts  be 
wiped  out  by  the  reconstruction  of  congested  streets  and 
the  provision  of  open  areas. 


368  THE    FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

In  the  past  decade  Baltimore  has  supplied  certain  of  its 
most  pressing  needs  by  the  issue  of  long-time  funded  loans. 
The  cost  of  transient  improvements,  properly  chargeable  to 
current  income,  has  thus  been  thrown  upon  those  who  are 
to  come  hereafter.  This  vicious  policy  of  discounting  the 
future  can  not  continue  indefinitely  and  the  defeat  by  popu- 
lar vote  of  the  "  municipal  improvement "  loan  of  1898  indi- 
cates popular  apprehension  of  its  danger. 

Assuming,  then,  that  the  future  development  of  Balti- 
more is  dependent  upon  the  possibility  of  progressive  ex- 
penditure, a  wise  municipal  policy  will  seek  rehef  in  three 
fiscal   devices:   (i)   economy   in   municipal    administration, 

(2)  more  productive  use  of  existing  sources  of  revenue, 

(3)  discovery  and  appropriation  of  new  forms  of  local  in- 
come. 

(i)  The  administrative  history  of  Baltimore  has  been 
free  from  any  one  great  scandal  or  palpable  corruption, 
such  as  distinguishes  the  municipal  experience  of  New  York 
or  Philadelphia.  The  affairs  of  the  city  have  simply  been 
conducted  upon  a  dull  level  of  expensive  mediocrity. 
Reasonably  sound  business  principles  have  prevailed  in 
certain  departments,  such  as  the  public  parks  and  the  water 
works,  and  at  rare  and  brief  intervals  the  whole  standard  of 
local  administration  has  been  appreciably  raised.  On  the 
other  hand,  important  branches  of  municipal  service,  such 
as  the  City  Commissioner's  Ofifice  and  the  street-cleaning 
and  lamp-lighting  departments,  have  been  managed 
throughout  upon  notoriously  cheap  political  methods ;  while 
at  time  it  has  been  morally  if  not  demonstrably  certain  that 
improper  influences  were  shaping  the  whole  course  of 
municipal  affairs. 

It  is  doubtful  whether  in  the  long  run  an  outright  loot- 
ing of  the  municipal  treasury  is  more  costly  than  continued 
maladministration.  The  consequence  of  the  first  course 
is  popular  reaction;  of  the  second,  popular  acquiescence. 
Any  quantitative  estimation  of  how  much  Baltimore  has 
annually  suffered  in  this  respect  is  impossible.     The  same 


PRESENT   FINANCIAL   CONDITION    OF   BALTIMORE      369 

end  is  attained  by  the  deliberate  statement,  that  the  city 
has  been  administered  during  the  greater  part  of  its  later 
history  with  a  wastefulness  and  inefficiency  that  no  indi- 
vidual or  corporation  would  permit  in  the  conduct  of  pri- 
vate affairs.  In  recent  years  the  need  of  increased  revenue 
has  been  felt;  but  at  no  time  in  the  history  of  the  city  have 
the  services  rendered  been  commensurate  with  the  resources 
actually  available. 

The  grant  of  a  new  city  charter  and  the  birth  of  a  new 
municipal  spirit  afford  the  possibility  of  marked  change  in 
this  direction.  Instead  of  a  cumbrous  and  costly  organi- 
zation, permitting  laxity  and  waste  in  every  direction,  oppor- 
tunity is  now  given  for  a  skilled  and  economical  conduct 
of  municipal  affairs.  In  so  far  the  financial  future  of  Bal- 
timore is  completely  identified  with  its  administrative  policy. 
With  the  city  government  in  the  hands  of  proper  men,  the 
important  features  of  the  new  charter — centralization  of 
power  in  the  city  executive  and  departmental  responsibility 
— make  it  possible  to  appreciably  reduce  the  cost  of  munici- 
pal service.  If  the  contrary  condition  prevail,  the  same  fac- 
tors become  instniments  of  oppression  and  a  vista  is  af- 
forded of  extravagant  administration  such  as  Baltimore  in 
a  century  of  corporate  existence  has  never  known. 

(2)  An  efficient  municipal  administration  can,  under  the 
new  charter,  not  only  reduce  the  cost  of  present  municipal 
service  but  render  existing  sources  of  revenue  more  pro- 
ductive. Conducted  on  economical  principles  the  water  de- 
partment can  be  made  to  yield  a  large  annual  surplus.  A 
wiser  policy  with  respect  to  municipal  real  estate  would 
appreciably  increase  income  from  this  source.  The  method 
in  vogue  with  respect  to  the  audit  of  the  franchise  tax  on 
street  railways  encourages  carelessness  and  laxity.  It  is 
more  than  likely  that  stricter  supervision  would  result  in 
larger  revenue  from  municipal  markets  and  wharves. 

It  is,  however,  with  respect  to  property  taxation  that  the 
largest  gains  can  be  effected.  The  methods  employed  in 
the   assessment   of  property  for  municipal   taxation   have 

X 


370  THE   FINANCIAL  HISTORY   OF  BALTIMORE 

been  crude  and  primitive.  At  long  and  irregular  intervals 
revaluations  of  local  property  have  occurred,  in  conjunc- 
tion with  general  state  reassessments.  In  the  intervening 
periods — the  last  of  which  endured  twenty  years — valua- 
tions remained  unchanged  save  as  modified  by  the  spas- 
modic descent  of  an  inadequate  assessing  force  upon  the 
realty  of  particular  localities.  The  legislation  of  1896  was 
designed  to  correct  the  most  conspicuous  of  these  evils  by 
providing  for  periodic  local  revaluation  and  for  the  taxa- 
tion of  intangible  wealth  at  a  minimum  rate.  That  the  re- 
sulting gain  has  been  far  less  than  that  anticipated  is  directly 
attributable  to  the  methods  of  administration  employed.  As 
long  as  the  local  assessors  are  selected  solely  with  reference 
to  political  qualifications,  will  their  work,  if  not  character- 
ized by  inefficiency  and  neglect,  be  at  least  very  different 
in  results  from  that  which  expert  service  would  secure. 

Municipal  poHcy  is  here  again  of  peculiar  importance  at 
the  present  time.  Failing  to  attain  appreciable  results,  it  is 
probable  that  the  periodic  revision  of  assessments  author- 
ized by  the  act  of  1896  will  be  allowed  to  lapse,  and  depend- 
ence had,  as  before,  upon  widely  separated  state  revalua- 
tions. An  important  area  of  the  city,  the  "  Annex,"  be- 
comes subject,  for  the  first  time,  in  1900  to  municipal  as- 
sessment and  taxation,  and  the  methods  of  valuation  there 
pursued  will  largely  determine  to  what  extent  the  burden  of 
municipal  taxation  is  to  be  lightened  by  this  addition.  Fin- 
ally there  is  every  likelihood  that,  with  the  aid  of  the  penalty 
clauses  and  the  limited  tax  rate  of  the  act  of  1896,  securities 
could  be  reached  to  a  reasonable  degree  by  an  efficient 
assessing  force;  on  the  other  hand,  unless  a  favorable  turn 
in  municipal  finances  dispels  the  growing  fear  that  the 
full  local  rate  will  ultimately  be  imposed  thereon,  intangible 
wealth  will  tend  more  and  more  to  escape  assessment. 

(3)  Important  economies  may  be  effected  in  the  admin- 
istration of  the  city  and  larger  receipts  derived  from  exist- 
ing forms  of  income.  Yet  sooner  or  later  the  necessity 
will  arise  for  additional  sources  of  local  revenue,  if,  indeed, 


PRESENT    FINANCIAL    CONDITION    OF   BALTIMORE      37I 

the  occasion  therefor  has  not  already  come.  Public  senti- 
ment has  long  favored  two  devices:  (a)  apportionment  of 
the  proceeds  of  the  state  school  taxes  so  that  the  city  may 
receive  the  full  amount  which  it  contributes,  and  (b)  receipt 
by  the  city  of  the  entire  amount  instead  of  three-fourths  of 
the  revenue  from  license  taxes  on  local  liquor-dealers. 
Both  measures  involve  the  diversion  into  the  municipal 
treasury  of  revenue  now  accruing  to  the  state  and  the 
counties,  and  require  enabling  acts  of  the  General  Assembly. 
The  attitude  of  the  legislature  to  the  municipality  has  not 
been  such  as  to  afford  reasonable  likelihood  that  the  mere 
equity  of  such  measures  will  secure  their  passage. 

In  at  least  three  directions  the  city  treasury  has  suffered 
from  an  indirect  loss  of  local  revenue  and  corrective  meas- 
ures are  desirable  and  feasible.  Legislative  amendment  or 
new  adjudication  should  devise  a  more  equitable  method 
than  that  now  in  vogue  for  determining  the  proportion  of 
the  gross  receipts  of  local  street  railways  liable  to  the  fran- 
chise tax.  The  exemption  of  manufacturing  plants  from 
municipal  taxation  should  be  discontinued  as  a  form  of 
local  protectionism  for  which  there  is  little  theoretical  justifi- 
cation and  less  practical  advantage.  Finally,  measures 
should  be  taken  by  a  modification  or  outright  disposition  of 
the  city's  interest  in  the  Western  Maryland  Railroad  Com- 
pany to  realize  a  net  income  from  what  has  long  been  a 
burdensome  and  unproductive  asset. 

Similar  in  importance  but  more  novel  in  character  is  the 
possibility  of  a  series  of  local  license  taxes,  graduated  in 
amount  and  designed  particularly  to  reach  industries  which 
derive  especial  advantage  from  urban  growth,  or  which  are 
able  by  virtue  of  existing  methods  of  assessment  and  ex- 
emption to  escape  a  proper  share  of  local  taxation.  The 
large  retail  department  stores  are  a  type  of  the  first  class, 
and  an  increasing  number  of  financial  corporations,  whose 
capital  stock  is  largely  invested  in  tax-exempt  securities, 
represent  the  second  class.  Agitation  of  such  a  tax  would 
probably  summon  forth  the  bogey  of  threatened  removal, 


372  THE   FINANCIAL   HISTORY    OF   BALTIMORE 

but  public  sentiment  in  Baltimore  can  fairly  be  counted  upon 
to  appraise  this  argument  at  its  proper  valuation.  An  in- 
crease in  the  amount  of  the  license  tax  on  liquor  sales — the 
entire  increment  to  accrue  to  the  city  treasury — ^would 
probably  result  in  increased  revenue  from  this  source,  and 
would,  in  any  event,  better  serve  the  regulative  purpose  con- 
templated but  not  satisfactorily  attained  by  the  original 
measure. 

An  immediate  source  of  local  revenue  is  made  available 
by  the  franchise  provisions  of  the  new  charter.  Hence- 
forth no  rights  in  or  relating  to  any  public  place  or  prop- 
erty can  be  granted  by  the  city  save  upon  competitive 
award  and  for  a  term  not  exceeding  twenty-five  years,  sub- 
ject to  renewal  and  revaluation.  The  Board  of  Estimates 
is  vested  with  absolute  power  to  determine  the  amount  and 
kind  of  compensation  to  be  paid  for  the  grant  of  all  fran- 
chises. The  consolidation  of  the  important  local  indus- 
tries of  service — street  railways  and  electric  lighting  com- 
panies— has  in  great  part  nullified  the  provision  for  competi- 
tive award  and  added  in  corresponding  degree  to  the  re- 
sponsibility of  the  Board  of  Estimates. 

It  is  of  high  importance  that  in  all  future  franchise  grants 
the  principle  of  a  definite  "  lump  sum  "  payment  be  aban- 
doned, and  that  provision  be  made  for  the  receipt  of  an 
annual  income,  either  in  the  form  of  a  progressive  charge 
or  a  percentage  upon  gross  receipts.  In  this  way  alone 
can  there  be  any  permanent  adequate  addition  to  the  pro- 
ductive resources  of  the  city  from  franchise  grants.  A  spe- 
cific payment  is  ordinarily  frittered  away  within  the  current 
year  or  employed  in  the  discharge  of  an  improperly  incurred 
existing  claim.  In  any  event  the  "  lump  sum "  principle 
fails  to  provide  for  the  increment  in  the  value  of  the  fran- 
chise which  comes  in  the  interval  between  grant  and  re- 
newal. The  citizens  of  Baltimore  have  a  striking  object- 
lesson  in  the  operation  of  the  "  park  tax  "  of  the  salutary 
effects  of  deriving  an  annual  revenue  from  municipal  fran- 
chises, and  in  all  subsequent  grants  the  same  principle 
should  prevail. 


PRESENT   FINANCIAL    CONDITION    OF   BALTIMORE      373 

The  city  has  already  conferred  certain  of  its  most  valuable 
franchises,  as  the  right  of  way  to  gas,  electric  lighting  and 
telephone  companies,  for  no  consideration  whatever.  Rad- 
ical legislation  having  in  view  the  correction  of  the  conse- 
quences of  this  reckless  prodigality  is  at  the  present  time 
unlikely.  A  more  feasible  suggestion  is  that  the  munici- 
pality should  recognize  the  existing  condition  of  affairs 
and  derive  some  profit  from  the  situation.  It  is  notorious 
that  large  amounts  are  periodically  expended  by  these  in- 
dustries of  service  to  avert  hostile  legislation — proposed 
solely  with  this  end  in  view — ^by  the  General  Assembly, 
and  to  a  very  much  less  degree  by  the  City  Council.  Some 
part  of  what  is  thus  levied  as  legislative  blackmail,  by 
methods  technically  known  as  "  bell-ringing "  and  "  cor- 
poration-plugging/' would  in  all  probability  be  willingly 
paid  to  the  city  for  undisturbed  possession  of  reasonable 
privileges.  Municipal  finances,  corporate  dividends  and 
political  morality  would  alike  be  benefited  by  such  an  ar- 
rangement. 

Whatever  be  the  fiscal  programme  of  Baltimore  in  the 
coming  years,  its  effectiveness  will  continue  dependent  upon 
the  character  of  local  administration.  Mechanism  has  been 
provided  for  an  efficient  municipal  organization,  rendering 
improving  service  at  diminishing  cost.  But  this  apparatus 
constitutes  no  panacea,  and  popular  will  must,  in  the  last 
resort,  determine  whether  the  old  conditions  shall  endure — 
unwise,  yet  compulsory  retrenchment  in  expenditure,  fric- 
tion and  distress  in  taxation,  ominous  accumulation  of  in- 
debtedness— or  whether  Baltimore  in  the  twentieth  century 
shall  be  a  wholesome,  healthful  area,  well  lighted  and  paved, 
with  excellent  schools  and  abundant  comforts  and  conveni- 
ences, where  residence  will  have  become  a  delight  and  a 
blessing. 


BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  NOTE/ 

Adams,  Thomas  S.  Taxation  in  Maryland.  Chapter  I  of  "  Studies 
in  State  Taxation."  Baltimore,  1899.  In  Johns  Hopkins  Uni- 
versity Studies  in  Historical  and  Political  Science,  Extra  Volume 
XXI. 

Allen,  William,  and  Johnson,  John.  Life  and  Work  of  John 
McDonogh  and  Sketch  of  the  McDonogh  School.  Baltimore, 
1886. 

Baltimore.  Records  of  the  Commissioners  of  Baltimore  Town, 
1729-1796  (MS). 

Mayor's    Annual    Message   and    Annual    Reports    of    City 

Officers.     Baltimore,  1797-1897. 

Ordinances  and  Resolutions  of  the  Mayor  and  City  Council. 

Baltimore,  1797-1897. 

Baltimore   City   Code.     Baltimore,    1858,    1869,   1879,    1892, 

1893. 

Report  of  the   Tax  Commission   of  Baltimore,   appointed 

under  Ordinance  No.  61,  of  May  9,   1885.     Baltimore,   1885. 

Report  of  the  Commission  to  investigate  the  affairs  of  the 

Western  Maryland  Railroad  Company  and  the  interest  of  the 
City  therein;  together  with  the  reports  of  Stephen  Little,  Ex- 
pert Accountant,  and  H.  T.  Douglas,  Expert  Engineer.  Bal- 
timore, 1893. 

Report  of  the  Sewerage  Commission  of  the  City  of  Balti- 


more.    Baltimore,  1897. 
Baltimore  and  Ohio   Railroad  Company.     Annual    Report   of 
the    President  and   Board   of   Directors  to   the   Stockholders. 
Baltimore,  1827-1856. 

Dillon,  John  F.     Commentaries  on  the  Law  of  Municipal  Cor- 
porations.    Boston,  1890. 

Griffith,  Thomas  W.    Annals  of  Baltimore.     Baltimore,   1824. 

Hadley,  Arthur  T.     Railroad  Transportation:  its  History  and  its 
Laws.     New  York,  1893. 

'  General  treatises  on  finance  and  municipal  government,  newspaper  files  and  legal  reports  are 
not  herein  included. 

(374) 


BIBLIOGRAPHICAL   NOTE.  375 

Maryland.  Laws  of  Maryland:  1637-1763,  edited  by  Thomas 
Bacon,  n.  p.  n.  d.  1763-1898,  published  in  annual  and  biennial 
volumes  by  the  General  Assembly.  Annapolis  and  Baltimore, 
1763-1898.     Constitutions  of  1776,  1851,  1864  and  1867. 

The    Maryland    Code:    Public    General    Laws.     Baltimore, 

1888.     Public  Local  Laws.     Baltimore,  1888. 

Report  of  the  Maryland  Tax  Commission  to  the  General 


Assembly,  January,  1888.     Baltimore,  li 

Massachusetts.  Report  of  the  Commissioners  appointed  to  in- 
quire into  the  expediency  of  revising  and  amending  the  Laws 
relating  to  Taxation  and  exemption  therefrom.     Boston,  1875. 

Reizenstein,  Milton.  The  Economic  History  of  the  Baltimore 
and  Ohio  Railroad,  1827-1853.  Baltimore,  1897.  In  Johns  Hop- 
kins University  Studies  in  Historical  and  Political  Science,  Fif- 
teenth Series,  Nos.  VII-VIIL 

Rosewater,  Victor.  Special  Assessments:  a  Study  in  Municipal 
Finance.  New  York,  1893.  In  Columbia  College  Studies  in 
History,  Economics  and  Public  Law,  Vol.  II,  No.  3. 

ScHARF,  J.  Thomas.  The  Chronicles  of  Baltimore;  being  a  com- 
plete history  of  "  Baltimore  Town  "  and  Baltimore  City  from 
the  earliest  period  to  the  present  time.     Baltimore,  1874. 

History  of  Baltimore   City  and   County  from  the  earliest 

period  to  the  present  day:  including  biographical  sketches  of 
the  representative  men.     Philadelphia,   1881. 

Schmeckebier,  L.  F.  The  History  of  the  Know-Nothing  Party 
in  Maryland.  Baltimore,  1899.  In  Johns  Hopkins  University 
Studies  in  Historical  and  Political  Science,  Seventeenth  Series, 
Nos.  III-IV. 

Seligman,  Edwin  R.  A.     Essays  in  Taxation.     New  York,  1895. 

Thomas,  Thaddeus  P.  The  City  Government  of  Baltimore.  Bal- 
timore, 1896.  In  Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies  in  Historical 
and  Political  Science,  Fourteenth  Series,  No.  II. 

Warner,  Amos  G.  American  Charities:  a  Study  in  Philanthropy 
and  Economics.     New  York  [1894]. 

WiLHELM,  L.  W.  Maryland  Local  Institutions.  Baltimore,  1895. 
In  Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies  in  Historical  and  Political 
Science,  Third  Series,  Nos.  V-VI-VII. 

WooDBRiDGE,  S.  HoMER.  Report  on  the  Sanitary  Condition  of  the 
Primary  Schools  of  Baltimore.     Baltimore,  1898. 

Wynne,  James.  Sanitary  Condition  of  Baltimore.  Baltimore, 
1850.  [Extract  from  the  First  Report  of  the  Committee  on 
Public  Hygiene  of  the  American  Medical  Association;  re- 
printed in  Municipal  Reports  of  Baltimore  City,  1850.] 


00  >o 

lO 

OS 

■* 

t-  © 

00      2 

rH  CO  rH          ifl 

■* 

-*  OS 

w 

lO 

« 

<M  © 

©    -* 

O  CO  rH          rH 

04 

O           ^   50 

o 

lO 

o 

S  «  ©  :  :  : 

«»    r:! 

IC  CO  00       '.  rH 

© 

^       to « 

CO 

CO 

to 

52  <^  ©    .    .    . 

N    « 

00  CO  ©       .00 

1ft 

rH 

CO 

00^ 

t-  CO  IC       .      .      . 

CD     5 

CO  rH  ■*       .  © 

00 

'-I          »0  00 

T-< 

lo" 

r-l 

'-'   ^rH 

rH       rH 

© 

Ift' 

rH 

.  »+*-H 

y s 

Ho 

-H        Hw 

-e  th  t- 

l> 

CD 

o 

© 
rH 

•*   rH  0}   »0 

CO       © 

©  CO  ©  ©  00 

© 

rH 

CO 

■* 

o 

00 

"^  Oi  rH   t-  J>       '• 

rH       © 

»0  C4  CO  CO  i- 

0=                   rHrH       ■ 

rH      rH 

rH                 rH 

00 

'"'  .,  eo  t- 

T-i 

-* 

•  00 

OS 

rH  t-  c^  I-  CO 

t-      © 

CO  O  C-  ©  CO 

© 

=rt  05  oj 

o 

00 

o 

l- 

to  N  ©  rtl 

I-      (M 

CO  CO  l^  ■*  © 

l- 

CO   lO 

(M 

« 

rH 

■* 

rH  m  »C  CO 

iC      CO 

rH          CQ          »0 

■>*< 

to  rH 

^^-^ 

00 

W 

CO 

00 

.   H*«t« 

«H> 

^^ 

KM 

•*m« 

r^           rf« 

«H< 

rO  O  r-H 

^ 

rH 

to 

iO 

CO  ©  (M  ■^ 

©    © 

©  ©  •*  CO  t- 

in 

iH 

rH 

rH 

;^  «;'*  ® 

tH 

■* 

t- 

iO 

;*'  ©  CO  oj  «    • 

©      1« 

in  00  CO  rH  OS 

in 

05   m^ 

rH 

©                        r-l       . 

rH                 tH 

T-<            «    00 

»o 

t- 

t~ 

CO 

'-I  w  ©  to  © 

CO       iO 

00  03  CO  00  t- 

CO 

"^  CO  00 

CO 

t- 

Oi 

CO 

rH  rH  CO  "C 

t-    <o 

1ft  o  00  in  © 

CO 

,H  O 

r-1 

<M 

CD 

rH  »0  t-  CO 

•^      C<J 

rH          rH  rH  in 

CO 

SO    T-l 

■* 

rH 

■* 

.   -t* 

r+* 

'^ 

^ ^ 

f  MW 

H"                     r*^ 

©   00   ■*  Ci   rH 

«t* 

n3  l- 

i- 

•^ 

o 

to 

(M          ©  CO 

©    © 

CO 

rH 

rH 

5S  _;  "    • 

05 

to 

o 

<?* 

CO  lO      ;  «  00      ! 

©    »o 

©  00  ©  rH  O 

04 

0>    CO  r-l      . 

rH 

rH 

rH 

S^  • 

rH       rH 

rH          rH  rH 

rH 

^^zi  ■ 

s 

to 

<?* 

OJ 

rH  05       '  CO  t- 

(M      CO 

t-  ^-  in  I-  « 

04 

00 

<M 

(M          <M  t- 

CO       rH 

CD  ■*  ©  ■*  00 

04 

t- 

CO 

y-< 

w 

CO 

rH          t-  0« 

CO      (M 

tH         (M         © 

CO 

lO 

to 

(N 

rH           rH 

CO 

'+' 

^ . 

HN 

niK 

H« 

-d         ® 

w 

t- 

o' 

Oi 

CO                 CO 

©      © 

©  ©  © 

© 

O  -;     •  o* 

o 

O 

o 

© 

O©     •     •©     ; 

OS  "-I     •     • 

©      lO 

©  ©  in     .    • 

© 

§  ""     • 

rH 

rH 

rH  rH       •      • 

^          ."o. 

>c 

CO 

CO 

(M 

^§§  •  -i  • 

tn       rH 

mi-©     •    • 

04 

^■^       « 

CO 

00 

rt< 

t- 

CO     »o 

CO  in  in 

l- 

«rt          tH 

CO 

to 

rH 

to 

CO      CO 

rH         m 

rH 

tH 

(M 

04 

-d 

H" 

, , 

Hw 

-       '*' 

H" 

■*  »« 

o 

00 

O 

« 

©         CO         iO 

©    1-1 

©  t-  ©          rH 

1ft 

OJ    on  00  0» 

00 

1« 

o 

rH 

OS  ©      ;  04      ;  CO 

O      tH 

O  W  CO       !  04 

rH 

00               rH 

00              .              .  rH 

rH   rH       .  tH 

c- 

t- 

tH         CO  lO 

o 

00 

°e 

rH 

rH  CO         CO         © 

W      0* 

in  1ft  ©     '  t- 

rH 

-,-  C»  CO 

la 

CO 

iO 

e? 

M         t-         OS 

CD      ■* 

co  «  in       © 

03 

"^  CO  lO 

■* 

lO 

*— * 

05 

IC          rH 

CO      CO 

rH         O         C4 

© 

T-l 

« 

rH 

04 

(M 

i- 

© 

CO          ©          © 

CO      © 

©   CO  © 

© 

rH 

tH 

rH 

oo'  ./  00     • 

o» 

rj< 

•* 

00  CO       •  ©      -CO 

CO    ia 

©   04  tH       •       . 

rH 

5o  ""  th    . 

00         ;         ; '-' 

rH       rH 

rH               •       • 

1— t         ^      * 

rH 

-* 

in 

^  ©    !  ©    .'  00 

in    © 

o  CO  in     '•    '• 

in 

crt? 

rH 

rH 

!M 

"^  ■*          00          00 

CO       CO 

m  rH  rH 

04 

Ui 

00 

rH 

OS        CO 

CO       CO 

rH           1ft 

rH 

<M 

■* 

rH 

■* 

.  '^'i:^ 

'd  r-l  t- 

t- 

o 

© 

CO         05 

© 

©  ©  ©   ■* 

© 

rH 

1-* 

l>       .   05   W 

Ui 

rH 

CO 

i>  CO  I  ©  ;  ; 

© 

©  ©  ©  ©   ; 

CO 

00    ^  rH 

T-< 

00              .  rH       .      . 

rH 

rH 

!> 

»        .        .    . 

rH          IC  rH 

t- 

in 

© 

rH  CO          t" 

m 

©  CO  CO  ■*      • 

© 

=rt^S 

Ui 

r-l 

rH 

CO          •* 

<M 

Ift  CO  1ft   © 

rH 

N 

O 

Oi 

(M 

CO 

rH          CO  ■* 

© 

rH  rH 

rH 

•* 

rH 

<M 

■* 

.  O 

o 

© 

•*  O  CO 

o 

^       © 

© 

-a  rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

S    «rH       . 

o 

© 

^      .      .  ift  t-  « 

CO 

00      .® 

© 

rH 

S      •      •               ^ 

rH      . 

rH 

^          <«       • 

• 

c? 

W 

^     '.     I  00  ©  ■* 

© 

00     12? 

ift 

f-l  e^   rH 

CO 

■* 

^            t-  ©  © 

<* 

^           CO 

Tt< 

^  (N 

(N 

CO 

rH  ■*   00 

t- 

CO         rH 

CO 

Tf 

>!t< 

rH          rH 

'' 

-n 

-d  t- 

© 

t- 

O  CO  W 

t- 

rT"       rH 

t- 

.   00  CO     • 

o 

to 

.      .      .  (M  t-  t- 

t- 

t-      ■  04 

CO 

CO 

r-i 

rH 

CO       •       •  rH 

tH 

rH       ■  rH 

rH 

00 

00       •       • 

t-         CO      • 

• 

05 

N 

l>       .       .  rH  C4  © 

CO 

rH      .'  1*1 

04 

^=rtg 

Ttl 

■* 

rH                 ©  ■>*  © 

© 

rH          rH 

■^ 

rH 

Ui 

■*  CO  ■* 

I- 

rH           C4 

in 

a> 

05 

W         (M 

© 

•    •       J. 

"3 

"o 

Cb. 
88  and  forfeitures, 
teriea 

cial  assessments. . 
eral  Property  Tax 
tion  Receipts  Tax 
cial  Taxes: 

O 
H 

Db. 

igations  incurred 
sting  claims  . . . . 
es  remitted  and  ' 

OQ 

a 
a 

o 

CJ 

"ia 
t-t 
O 

Is 

es  in  arrears 

diem  allowance  ] 
special  commis- 
ners.                       j 

)  Taverns. 
)  Horses  and  car- 
riages. 

)  Billiard  Tables.  | 
)  Exhibitions.      J 
)aid  taxes.  .  . 

•  P< 

■.  CI 

00     ^ 

3  m  S 

0.2 

"g-2 

ri    -M     <U     a     lli     aJ 

.3    O    a  ID    f^    p, 
pq  r^  02  O  <<  OQ 

03  .Q 

2^3- d  «  ^ 

OHH 

«    00 

HPh 

O     09 

""""pis 

rH  «  eo' 

ni »» 

rH  (?} 

CO  ■*  »rf  co' 

t- 

00  ©■ 

1 

>  a> 
V   c3 

02   O 


o  "  ,n 


(376) 


•  1-1  M  «  O  O 
(M  M  t-  (M  O 


_j  05  «  M  1«  CO 

"^05  1-1  CO 


•  35  «0  O  00  CO 

eo' 

05     .  r-i  eo  O  CO  i-l 

t*     OQ    1— I 

I-l 

<^  CO 


03    i-i   T-l    ■# 
•«J4  00  OS  CO 


O  CO 
00  -«1( 
Tj<  to 


to  iO  o  « 

■*  ■*  iH 


1-1  O  JO  o> 
«  OJ  t-  »« 


OS  00  I 

eo  «o 

JO  ■* 


CO  t-  o  eo 
eo  <M  o  JO 


l>  JO 

■*  CO 


OS 


(M  00  JO  r-l  l- 


.  to  o  c*  CO  00 


St* 


OS   ■*  O  -H 
(M  i>  O  i- 


00  «o 
eo  w 

tJ(  1-1 


(M  t-  iH  O 


^  t-  eo  o  «  o 

^  iH 

S      .  to  OS  O  00  JO 

g;  "       1-1       th  1-1 

. .   r-l  1-1  CO  to  « 
C(^  O  1-1  to  <N 


_j  I-  o  JO  00  to 

"O  iH 

00      •  00  ■*  00  Tj<  t- 
j«    <0  iH  1-1 

iH 

, ,  t-  •*  •*  00  l- 

«rt  t-      ©  00 


00  -i"*  t- 
li  «>  1-1 


to  O  to 
JO  w 
N  iH 


1-1  O  to 

1-1  1-1 

00  •*  o  t- 


•CO  o  o 
to 

00 

j^    .  00  JO  o 

Sg     "iH  IH 

'"'  ,,  JO  ■*  (M 

^  OS  T*<  e» 


o* 


■^         CO  "^ 


•  -a    • 

SS  : 
.S§  : 

oi    O     ', 

a  o    . 
o  -S 

^  "3  .2 

■^   O   eS 


a  <o 


«  5P2 


o   "> 

^  S 
«  2 

§§_ 

03    08    " 


M 


SH    <H     O 


.2    o 


r-l  C4  eo  ■*  JO 


£3    *    <o    «-    ij 

2    SJ   O)    03    OS  tt     ~ 

r-i  C»  CO  -^  JO  to 

(377) 


•  ^  o     <?» 

iH  (?J 

rH  O 

O 

■O          r-l 

1-1 

»    .  o  eo    ■* 

«   t-       . 

'  1*  O 

■* 

OS   a,^ 

>-l 

r-l 

•  r-i 

iH 

,,   t-  t-       ^ 

T-i  OS      • 

'  eo  o 

•* 

=rt  o  OS    o 

t-  o    . 

■*  00 

o 

I-  JO      « 

to  CQ       • 

rH  rl 

e« 

eo 

r 

l-H       • 

« 

m 

•    JO    1-1          Tj* 

iM  O  O 

w  o 

•^ 

J5       ■  00  <M       i-< 

o  to  O 

'•  JO  o 

j-{ 

*    ■»  rH  i-(      1-1 

rH 

1-1 

=rtSI?^  B 

to  to  O 

•  to  o 

to 

00  CO  o 

I-  o 

OS 

CO  to      OS 

CO  CO  (M 

lO  (M 

OS 

1-1 

r 

rH 

^-  t-  IM      OS 

Ttt  OS  OS 

O  rH 

rH 

OS 

2^    ^  CO  O      CO 

1-1  00  00 

•  eo   rH 

eo 

t-       '"' 

r^ 

1-1 

•  rH   rH 

l-H 

1-1 

.  -  •'H  ■*    00 

'^  JO  00      CO 

00  CO  OS 

.  to  t- 

00 

JO  t-  00 

<M  00 

eo 

JO  OJ      OS 

eo  t-  iH 

(M  CO 

OS 

1-1 

1-" 

r-l 

^•'O^ 

h     o 

o  t-  o 

O  JO 

o 

iH 

1-1 

rH 

§  ««; 

■1      CO 

iH  rH  O 

•  o  o 

eo 

-1       r-l 

iH          tH 

•  rH 

rH 

iH 

1— (  0( 

=rt  JO  jf 

3       OS 

Tf    «    t- 

•  t-  00 

OS 

©»   iH  00 

CO  •* 

o 

OJ  c 

3      to 

t-   1-1 

to 

to 

1-1 

iH 

rH 

■a       T- 

OS  t-  o 

■* 

gs  a>        ^ 

■<       OS 

OS  OS  O 

OS 

H        1-1 

rH 

1-1 

=rt§^ 

H       O 

JO  O  JO 

o 

:     l> 

O  (M  Tl< 

?• 

lO 

iH  r*< 

lO 

s      to 

O  r-l  O  OC 

l-H 

1-1 

rH 

to 

;i   •  I-  o 

OS     CO 

i      t~ 

CO  00  O  1- 

•  eo 

t- 

iH 

iH 

•  rH 

rH 

iH 

r.1  «  "■ 

^       1-1 

o  to  o  t- 

•  t- 

rH 

■^rt  Oi  C 

;  8 

00  (M  JO  ot 

JO 

o 

O  I- 

«  to   r-l 

e» 

1-1 

iH 

r^ 

•^"-^ 

JO 

OS  t-  t-  to 

JO 

§  ««J5 

t- 

■*  •*  00  OS 

I- 

t-4 

rH 

r-t 

r-l 

Crt^g 

to 

»  o  CO  OS 

to 

c* 

oi  eo  CO  o: 

« 

00  (M 

1-1 
r-l 

«  to  r-l  rH 

1^ 
rH 

ti 

a 

rs 

U   X 
^S 

^  c 

u. 

t- 

Dr. 

ing  and 
e  on  ha 

M 

03 
4) 

O 

-S      : 

u 

rt 

■2,2 

O 

H  5  o  -^ 

V     00 

00    m 
O    08 

O 

H 

Bala 
Liqu 
Dire 
Doe 

r-J  «* 

eo 

1-1 

<M 

CO 

■*' 

jo' 

to 

1 

Ni-T      •  CO  rt  r4eo  ei  r-T-aToT 


8§§ 


:{2 

:Se  :  :  :  : 

•50 

•53 

:i§  : : : : 

:    S  :  :  :  : 

nS 


iNMim    .O5>o>i;t-co 


lOr-ii-l 


i8S!8S^^;5S 

N(^f^-^(^^(^fI-1"-<i^to 


35h 


:S??8gE2  :3S  :S  :  :S  :  :S 


:3S 

.00    . 

:S  : 

:S  : 

JMoT 

;i; 

:**  : 

r^O       NN 


^a 


o   •  CO  tr  >n  »j  ro  IN  i-<  rH 

03    ;  ■*  *5_co  o  >n  co^-^  ® 

•  N  oT     ofco  r-T    e* 


•05  05 


is 

i-To 


S.t— >— IQOlOOlOQCO 
•  osoooaSoaSoaS 


iS3§ 


IQCOt- 


CO     •OS500'*-* 

o   •oejcoooo 


i-Ti-T    ei 


o     rocow«oS»SS 

SI— I  oo  gj  CO  >o  M  i^  "S; 
'2C9QSOL--*^m 
.*  02.-*  «0  00.0  t^co  o 
CO     -^e^r-Tsfcoef     ef 


Si 

i-TecT 


OCO       S     -Tjl  SfflrHOt-  'mt- 

i-toj     CO   •©  cot-t--*ej  -0000 

rHi-      55,  ;i-^  ni^th^inoo^  t"*®* 

•r-(  <Sr-c       rt 


(878) 


??8 


co-*oo5io 
od'cTi-Jo'N' 


ss 


StO^       OS    •!-!      ososcoot- 
t-C»        rH     ••*       1— II— li-lrl-* 

COr-T     of  j^     t-^ebr-ieiN    ;      N 


s;^  8 


oi  COt-OOIM&i  -COO 

m  ^coi— looio     oo«p 

CO  rHli5_COtr;.05_  ;  rH  00 

50  eOt^r-Trioi"  •  N  50 

r1  r-l  tH  • 


35    8 


OrH 
CO  rH 


ejcotorHei    •COOO 

05lSi-l«Or4        t-00 


Sirs     Q 

•rl        © 


CO  «5i— IrHCOlO 

1-1  l:-COi-(.*CC 

Q  ocst-t-as 

55  i-i  t-;^oo  00  00 

of  OCO      coco 


825 

ot- 


U5-* 


feS5] 


050( 

i-H       OO^iO  P  35,co 
CO     tow     coio 


osS   'SSS?     5   ■<o     »oo5»at->a   -Soo 

OOOa    'cOiOrH       Gi    -OS       t--*i-iC0»O    -OiT-l   r-i 
>25«    -i— 1-*  *     "i-H       r-3  T-l  CO  CO  I-I    •Nt-  CO 


iH^*    -COCO 


•  OS     •*■*     coio 


inrlTHOOi-l 
t-00-*INCl 

SCOrlOOO 
rlopt-OS 


••sa§|"§og£««-s§E 

3  o  3  p, S  S-2  s  Q,-"  S  S  "  c8 


8? 


:S§ 


t-  55  ri  lo  ui  ■*  I- 

O  -*  »J  Q  00  »-  •^ 

5  ?J  »r  3  =  »  '* 


:5S 


SIS 


t-QOOQOCOQ 

oot-c3i-ct-3 

S>-l  CO  ■<>•  &  oo 


S  :5 


S  :9 

O     'i-H 


■*      Hi      t-i-ic*t-i--3ii-0      t- 
•*   .  -^  .  oo^r^io  oj  CO  rt  o  «■■;.  ;  =0 


8S 

005 


OS   .CO   -tocogofflosOQN   .« 

'5.    ;  "^    I  CO  rH  •H'^lO  «0  t-  N  O     ;  SO, 


S8 


^83 


gSSS?S51SS  :8 


ia»i'»*<'T«     N-*-* 


88 


SSS  :SS8S?S  :S5 


300    •ecot-ooco    -f-IO 
b-       CO«OCOt-r-l       Or^ 
5.910*     ;  t-^i-l  rH  CO  ■*     Ii-llO 


851 

>0  7)< 


ODOlO  •!— li-lOS&t-     --^S 

oooeo  •oo-*Qt-}i    ^t-eo 

do  th  «D  ;  "^52 1-1^  io  ^  ;  ic.t^ 

o    lo  ••^ortcoi-T  |i-r-«ir 


8S  :S 


8S 

is 


SfMO 


Sgllllll 

03  aTc^'^r-Ti-^    '^ 


IS3 


CCCG 


2®, 


1  ©  q   •  ©i^J<  tS;3  6-3  S'C  e  ^  '"'  2'c:  ?<  5 
-g  M  £  OS  C  aJ  §  3^3  3  g  p.a  *^-g-g--  ciSri 

(379) 


-"'  ^'  ^'  s's^'s's 


8^9 


SobO     -O     <        StA^       ^OOOlT-lS     'let* 
WCiS     '^     •        ^t-rt       OX-^«iQ     '00 1- 

■^  o  5s   :  to   ;      00  o5  lo     -*  o  rt  OS  o   ;  «o  ■* 


SJSS  :S8    S8S    8S§SS888 

■*.«N    ;iot-      ©sous      »o t:-;.>0 ■* 0* o « » 


"CO       CO 


*      3t-i:-oSoS© 
tOOCO^t-Qi-IOD 

■^    r-j^^io  e4  00  ©  ffl  i-^ 
OtT    t-^oo'    Oi-i'ia'     i-T 


88 


:§S 


SSIoSSS 


l^    8 


^  5Jt-a»o©©©-* 

S  SffiSSooSSt- 

5}  la  iH  «o  55  ■*  ©.     t- 

Oi  OOO       ©CO  ffl' 


S§8  8  :g  §BSi8g§ 

CSlC  ©     -00  CCtG-^r^ia 

t-ia_  CO   .CO  ei®_o5»^i^ 

©fr-T  -CO  lat-T    ose* 


500       N 


S    i-S8$o6 

CO      -^uioi-iei 


•*       ■*COi-li-10* 


•  OT      t-Soot-cS    'So 


«DvO       U3    -00 

^ffl      (N    ;© 

i-Ti-T    rt   •«» 


i-l->*l<0©00     -IOC 


53 
■4<© 

00  CO 

T-Too" 


8    S5SSS 


§2 

Co  ^ 

2-2 


© 


<J« 


5 
©2 

g© 


Svl      ©CO-"' 

•a  a  ..  cTsi:  o— 


_  OrPp  ••  c 


1 


!®  p 
2  H 


»OOr-ltOOQQCOOOO>OC5«DQOO'* 

lo  T-i  to  Q  i^  1— I  o  Q  t-  >o  o  in  :^  -*<  "ffire  N  o  eo 


OS       T-lC<5-*« 


»0  r-(  T— I  ■'iH  iO  CO  O  I  -  I-  T-^  CO  C- 1  ^l  O 


M<  ■*  05,0,3,05  CO  S.»t-;.«-Jr-<_0:_CO 
r-T      r-rr-rraiOt-^COMr-Tr-"! 


<M 


(MIM 


ost-mrocoxnocOT-icxjcor-it-t- 

COOOt--CDCOO^r- lOr-IO'^t* 


ti  55  S  ^S  o  &  co_t^( 
eOCpt-^l-^'*r-H'      of>c-^ 


■^0iT-HCDa0»OQiC»nOCt5l-0505 
tOOO'-ICOMOCO— llO«rHlO00 


COT-HOOOOi"^OOiGOOO< 

g»f5000l-^^COO»C< 
^55 1- 1-1 05,0  CO  I- c5,-^_- 
t-T  cfeosoiniNcc" 


??lcoto 
HCCIQO 
gJoTrH 


SSSa 


I  CO  CO* 


■*  t-  00  N  IN 


05aocoo50i-< 


cor-(eooot-c053^-^^«o^l£l05•* 

SlNa5«:-rt>*SO(NloSoOQDCOt- 
CCCCCONCO^ICOSIOCOOOSOOO 
e5t-»ftlJ5O5mO5^CO^^C0t*f-H 
r-l  CO  CO  iCrH&M  -W  MN  05  CO -*  O 

o     i-HOcoco -*-*'-*  co'    Oiiaco 


rHt-!p;aiS>Jrt«PCOCPt-530100-<« 

i-nC'^abSot-*e5cOr-iw«Oi-if-< 

lO25t-'^«D»Ot-l<?3}}g>-*COO50S 
r-J^S  t-;,K  CO,CO_lN^®^a8^00  0,3  N& 

lo    Niococo-HrTfTco    r-rco-^ircr 


O5r-l00CO^l»Cl—  C-l-^05cpcocO'* 
COSOCOOl-CiCcO— <C0tDO'Xia5lN 

coo5cpco-*gasjjrtr-i®ig-*a> 
S  o  ^  CO  t- « cs^i-i  t-  S  *  o  CO  65 

COt-i'cJ'N  ■*'<r<o'cd  U5        r-Tr-TcoO 


5>nico-*<oo5 


C5l--*t-rtOoi5COl-NCOCO 

'0'T!^?S*'5JJ'T05-:aiiO!e( 


5  2J«^'-iS' 


i-(_c6  feN^oocs  &,&,-*  i-<_co.S,5 
05~    arcoiOMcdco-^rHi-ro'i-r- 


■«  •  in  U3  ■*  05  Q  CO  05  CO  «0  O  O  "-I 

»i  •  >0  •^  CO  00  3d  rl  lO  VO  t- >— (  O  05 

CO  •COCOC-JQOQD'-li— iQc»>nao05 

■W  •  ■*  Kr-1  ICO  CO  C5  lO  rH  o -*  55 

t-^  ;  -"jToTt^-Hr-^'^jroo'e^'i-i'io'co'iH" 

i-(  .                    (M                               i—li-l 


»t-NC0t-(NrHC005«ONei 
*C005C0CO>OCO-HCOC^«0i— I 

fOMODINeOCOOO-i'OlCpO 
CO-*  in  OO^O^-*  05,l—  QO^CO  N 
rHCOL-^Q^jTl-rio'-^       Os'lCCO 


co«cqcocoi-iint-ojf}  .coi-it- 

■*O55*0500r-l>OQ}J  -ScO^ 

Oi  l-H  CO  OO  cot- 0  05  05  00  -t-SO 

"t^t-^cot^Noi  tcQoTco 


-*        1— 105        T-l 


CO  CO  IM  «  r-l  CO  05  C-1  CO  lO 
-<*<lCm-THOOCO'*'H5oOO 

&;5Ji5'5™o^^'^'5co 
co-d'Q®i-co^w55'>r 
05,1— ( in      T— )  1-H 1— !  60  ■***  o 

CO     cT     odoo'cooD'cocd" 


2 

+5 
00. 

•  a 
:  o 

•  o 
(», 

N»H  J!   CO  (-t 

D  4,  Ml® 


bo-' 


(B-e 


SS8S 

inooQco 


ooosoro 


8SS5: 
SSSm 


S-*SS 

ini— iQin 

TOCoSoO 

Oi-^^TcooT 


8§SS 


sgj'-s 


CDNin 


001- in 

05t-M 

t-00O5 


05'*1 
I- CO  I 

CO  IOC 


Sg 


r-inO 
CO-^Xi 

I- cot- 


8S8S82S^ 

gSSiiScboom 
ONiocoinMio-"* 


coco 


8S 


ss 


ss 


8S 


8^ 


8S 

ooo 

i55 


<NOOL-  It- 


CO  1-1  &  iC  CO 


t-IO 

©co_ 

ini-T 


oot-^ 

CON 


lOt- 

00-* 

05  05 

T-(in 

OO^rt 

in-* 


-*OOQCPCO 

I— i3o3-* 
I-  (M  o  in  -* 

OCOOrHrt 


^s 


gsssss 

SiSoNro 
in-^'otToof 


ss 


2lgo|8 
— ."S  .a  g  ®  'r;  0  'S  Sh  H 


(380) 


SS8!5 


COffiS^L- 

ofccotTi-r 


SrlS-* 

rtNOOO 
051-II-1- 
COCOOI^ 

ooooi-T 


intT« 

05C0C 

t-t-c 

coo,« 
ooo 


oin-*i— I 

1-1  CO  00  CO 

t-__t- in  o 
rt't-^oei 


J28g 

coo 


CO  1-1 1- 


sss 


ODOOO 

Sit- 25 


8SSS53 

incD'os'r-T 


gcoc 
ina 


oicoo 

1-J,t--* 
coco 


Sinioi- 
of  inco 

§000  00 

in^'*-*"©^" 


03S8 


epos      5^-*oo      in^c 
S  CO      OS  t-  »      10  C-.  c 


585s 


-*f-iQ 
ICi-)?* 
COO0-* 


co'^incocoi 


f 5  Lo  m  ij  a5  ^  S  S 
6ic5oocoi-ii— iinS 

s3§  riss**'=»' 


8S    S8§ 


CO       I— IN-* 


oscooci-ejoccqj 
COCO1C1— ICC0050 

r-coo50coocoio 
coo5so5icoo-*io 
in  co_o:  t»  i-<_^o,-*  o, 
t-'od    o'ejco     in 

1— (        CO  CO  05        I— ( 


CO:*-* 

OCOrl 
r-T      CO 


ss 


NO* 


I S    c»  t-  8  S  8 

3Q        CO^QCDCO 

J^TO       O  §5.05  CO^S 

r         in  r-T     oo'eo" 

Nco     in  CO 


0505  rHCDCD 

CO-*  I--*-* 

S3  t-Ss-* 

NO  r-l  -*-*, 

r-TcO  i-i'n 


TOinOTco8 

N05  05  CO  CO 

CON       ScO 


CoS  |i-H, 
rlco" ,  i-T 


S8 


CO* 


t-CO 

r-Tt-T 


omcoogjcoinrt 
t-dSi-it-oooot-o 

Ni-Hi— lrHt-i-l-*t- 
■*COCD001-*Nr^ 
in  t- 1- 1-  O  00  N  CD 


CON       t-S 


00  I— 1-1  CO  1-1 
t-N-* 


t-co      coc 


T-|-*-*1— lt-1— ll-llO 
CO  O  00  00  i-^?5 -*  L- 
CON  -^l-CO  N 
NN       O0N-* 


iH05 

rHt— 

05,in 

rtN 


?8gS 

incoo5 
-*m^ 
N-*ci 


SS??i::S885; 

C0NCCC0-*OgO 

•^CCr^OiCCr^      -* 
N1-1       t-NCO 


Soo  ss^ 

OCO  NO-* 

in  CO  in  So 

N  Ni-To 


8S2gg8 

CO  ■*  05  t-  Ig  O 

CO  in  in  o5^S^©_ 
^co'i-T^'n'co' 


©cooo 

NCON 


8Sg3??8;:5S 

inco'i-TNQCo'NN 

Nr-I        OON 


§59. 


CO     ■*inco 


■*int- 

8Si 

-*^t^co 

~«N 


oon8nco8So  00 
oo5i-eo-^co-*o  o 


?ss 


t-  00  03  1-1  O 


sss 


cocooo5rHi— iino5 
®  CD  1-1  OS  in  CD  cooo 

NiSNt-^NgCo'N 


1-1 1-         1-H  O  1 

oseo     cooc 


t-coinint-co^co 
t-i-HOOi— iO-*oo 

88i^8SgS 


s^  N  «  OS  to  1.0  ?:  cc  TO  rj  I-  •  i-  c-j  ic  t- 1— i  o  m  N  s  ■— i 

>-i  55  T— I  lO  OS^iO  N -*^0C  CO  •  O  t-  t-_^Cfc  -^^O  O  r-_0  5'1_ 

eocow'-^coooooo'o'oio  :t-rt-^j'iaD>C05^Offl'i— 

1-1  ci5*55-*®r-i  :     JJncSim     rH55--ic<5 


lO -*  &  CO  lO  ^C5_i«  lO  M.CO 
Cp  Q  rH -«i<  COQ '^0~Cr»C2"-Tjr 

ioooocca5ooC2«00!i-i 

rt5»rlS»'lt-NCOOi 


•  ^C5COm^O»C»C'5^i-H  •  CO    1— t 

•05^>0_^0_»_.»^0^-i^O^CO_C5^  ■  "^  "^ 

:  fflcToi om'so'op'co'sf  o='  •  Oi  ® 

,  t- 1^  CO  M?  *— I  »5  ^  CO  Jl -^  .GO    C5 

i-lr-(CO(M           Nil  .       Un 


r-ll:-COCOQO'^Xl-*iai- 
CO  >0  5- J  OS  3  O  CO  I- 1— I  W  lO 

oooogsN->fQM>-i»nri05 

iOO_5d^*^C5_0_Ov_^GS_»0_CS^ 
ttL-r-Tco'-^'ofcOlo's.f-^lO 
Nt-i-lt-lOMaSp^L-r-l 

rl  i-i»ico55«to 


i  «t-C0?0tOQt-^t-CQ  -CO 

.  S  cR^iJ^M  t-^o,co  cS^t- N  •  N 

:  orM''oo*eo'co'co'Qo''«*rco'»o  :  t-^ 

.  1— I  3d -^  00  »0  IC  O  r-(  CO  I— )  .W 
.T-li— IL-Ni-I       -*N->»< 


1-1    •■*»iCOt-ao»j 


ScooOsi-* 
Si-ii-iosoi 


•  ■*K»-^co   -coeoi-iSois 

•  cooosgioos   ■  >o le rrj >o Q 1-1 

•  1-1 1-1  lO  OS  1—1    •oooot-oos 

•  CO  C0 1-1 -H  05_    •  i-1^00_l-^OS  o  to 

:  I*  t^t^^;^t-     '.  00  COS  QQN 

.©300i— toco    .  ca  OS  fp  55 15  ifl 


CO*    Qi1CP3t"-'51 
■*     .©t-OOOOSOS 

O     •Q«fCO®rt® 

i-i_  .  u5  00  co_^d£  OJ,c6 
CO    'SS^S''^'^ 


-*     .  lOCQi-li 


'  53  (M 1-1  CO  t- 
i  CO  ic  1-1 -*  00 

'TOCsiooS 

:  rioTcc  t-TeJ 
.■*^«5>nco 

.  N  C»  <a  1-1 1-H 


■lOncO 
■  ■^coao 

•lOQOOO 
.i-li-HiO 


89 


3SCO=OCOCOO:CO«r^*li-l     •COO<M30CO 

-*t-ioi-;20:*;oco;* 


(Scb»co56i5Sa6>i5-i--j. 

lOaD-i»'-*'Qo'«l-^t-^CDod' 

i-ii-icoSt»<3oco«ioco 


•  lO  •«  &  I- &_ 
:  1-1  sfos'-*© 

.-*05*  ~  ■ 


INO-TjOOt-rt—l-IOOW 

lOOOOO-^OOt-COCOiOi-l 
i-1C0lOCaCOr130CQCCO^l 
ab  05.0.  CC.-*  t-;  S.O.00^00_  <N 

't-^co  co"5i  CO  ?f  i-r->*"-*'t-^ 
-  -      si  CO 


O      1— ( 1-1 1- O  i*<  o:  ! 


•-^OMSOiffl 

i  »i  1-1 00  o  3 


>f5N-HaG-*cooci--3;cco?i  -osL-^iasio 

t-00rHi—  L-COCOC033^5-1  -lOOt-CO-* 

coaooii^coioSroascJs  --^ocoooco 

c£  CO  ©  os^oq^os^co  o  o  t-^co  •  oi^t-rt»  t-^ 

co-*T-i''*^co'"ort-^t^-*'N so  ; -^'t-^iot^t-^ 

lO  ■*  ■*  IQ  CD  CO  O  1— I  .1051CDOW5 


>*0DO 
NOS^I 
^1CO>Oi- 

oi5-*c 

r1CO'"*C 


rtt-CO 

loo:^ 

iCCOt- 

11  CO  OS 


OSNOOi 


sSeS 


le^iaNjji-   -r-tco^ooosoxos-^o 


•  iO  O  UO     •  N  OS  IM  t-  00 


Sxos-*o    -t-CSOJ    -cocc 
oo-*os    -ir-i-i-i    •coco 


a^'-^S??  iSSSSSgSSS'"  :SSS8 


COOPNNOJJ 

a<350Ot-o 

lOOOi-J^OOO 

cOi-i5jco     »-i 


«O^CO®i-iOO 
11  00  lO  O  00 -* 
-*  OS  9.1  CO  N  CO 
SJN-*06>2CO 

o  »o  t-  t^^oq^N 

oT      rlNo'o' 


ii-*N>nN  jj 

i0»il-«»<»0 

■*  « t-  >5  O  >5 

o>oo-<s<os 


11  -^  00  M  CO  X 
OS  O  ■*  M  CO  ■-« 


Sc5 


issss 


e      -*  M  N  t- 


osost-ao^QOCfscoNii 
COXCOOOCOCONCO'^'* 

OS  *1  CO  CO  CO 


g=e?5552t-?l'Mt-c 
COOOCOCOOS*1COCOC. 
■^1— 1  -4H_i1  CO_iJ^iii^OS^i1^W 

ufodos't^^cfoc'-^couo'ao" 

nn  iiNi»<-*CO 


COt-Mt- 
I- 1-  Jl  CO 

cocotoco" 


COOsS^ 

oxcsn 
ooxinn 

oo'l-^x'co 


o  ^i  2  iN  o= 

M<3S©30N 

ODOSO^OS 


•  t-lCt— 

•ilNCO 

:gS3 

.  t-t-t- 


SS§§^  r^'SJ 


t-OSOCOOS 
OCO©N-* 

-*oooac_^i- 

001-^00  COr-T 
rlNiloS 


'OCuX 
■XOSn 


COt-XiOOSt- -<t*oo 

coi-oco;oii-*<ocs 
co>niftffl»Nia©i— 

xoEosoiExooi- 


•OSlQlr- 


COrl 


-35  3 
!jO«i*    O 


vot- 


ss 


S§8 

OS'S 


t-i-     »oc 


ss  ss 


§■* 


-*co 

Nil 

lootT 


S8 


lOCO 
CON 

ss 


sss  ss 


58 

OSt-  >00  CO 

■^  OS  »—  S  OS 

dsco  coco  n 


CO       ©-^Ot-in 
~-      ^---^co  •c 

rH       OflOlOl-   Q 

rn-iNiSS 


•« 


IC-* 


otTio 

NO 


t-        OCil 


s  is 


OSt-     L—ia 
cooo      coos 


oco     lO 
SSt^     CO 


oco 
t-CO 
CON 

ION 


8 


cot-       -*       t-fi 


N       Nl- 


88    S    8^ 


nS 


•  S« 


ss  '^s 


OS,       -* 


:S35 


gj    S3 


ilN       »OC 


05_^t-^ 

x'n 


1   i 


ss 

coco 

85' 


MICONCOr-i 
-1  CO  &  1  o 

_      coosxt-o 

rH        O  -Xl  »  ^  N 


oco  © 

t-CO  1-1 

So  t- 

^•*  CO 

CO  CO  CO 


•S8 


ON 

oos 
coS 
i-Tio 


oo^ot-co 

COOSOCO  CO 
COt-C5COO 

osono-* 
•*c!5»ii_oo_ 

OOODN 


no       OS       t-cc    -n 


t-^r-T 


•00  'CO 

•  >o  t- 

•  OS    o 


oo      S-*    .»  t- 
o     ooN  .N  ra 


coco 


S  :S 


S  :S 


CSQCOO  CD-*  t- 

XCOCOil  coo  CO 

§Nt-0  OiH  t- 

oco  Jj  ^t-  Q 

CO  CO  CO  00  OS  cs 

I-TOOOI-T  cp^r-T  CO 

CO  NN 


NOscocoop 

i1t-t-N«0 

:*os-^t-o 
coooo-*o5 

t^^Nr-To 


ON 
Nt- 

is 


ilOCONCO 
nOOOSO 
CO  O  O  N  N 
NO— It-rt 

ocs_^-*o^o 
cocoi-Tt^ 


oo      « 


Nil      n 


SON 

-oo 


t- CO  cot- 


oSn 
oo 

OSr-l 


-*  O  N  N 11  - 

NnNO 


s^  s 


S8S 

nooo 


2  d  o'^t 


O  m 

^  a, 
CO  c  a  a 
1^21 


(381) 


S  'JO  ^  _  "^ 


:o2 

OD-1  *  tl  '^ 


a!  S« 
3« 


S  a 


S  e  03 
».2a3  3  -2 

^  fc,  3i  O  _.   JH 

»  fi  =»  «  Jl 
>  <S*i  Ki2 


O  D. 

"C  o 
®  o   . 

d£i 

o  "  — . 
o  * 

lass 

"    03  « 

.ds 


iooi«©omo»oooo»oi«ir-ico*icoi>«occi>ooooiCr-ij>oc 


©  05  o  M  OJ 
t-  50  ©  05  CO 


•xBj  :}oajip  JO 


r-^S  ^H  r*) -jU  -^M  "HOO  ■-♦>»  r4^ 

»n©lC©OlC©©"n«5»0©©(«CMWlCI>'*Oi-IO<!tOa3lc 


N  OT  OJ  (M  CQ 


•saapuq  pnB  s^BAiqSijj 


•(986T) 


•(856T)  Ja^BAi 


eoMcowcocoeoOT'Ciflirtin 


(M05«ft»OC050O00O 


*(9I6I)  Ja^BAl 


■aAoadtni  iBdtoinnjv^ 


•(0^61)  s:;n8m 
-aAOJdmt  oijqnj 


•IBjauaf) 


■8S6I  's:;aara 
-aAOJdmt  jBUJ9:jni 


■(9S6I)  ^^TBM. 


ijqap  ^URBOi^ 


■^Il^ii  jSanof 


•898 X  JO 

;q9p  Sui:jBOM 


•IIBH  ^%\3 


•X^janoq 

puB  aonajaQ 


•ijqap  ani^Boi^ 


T.  ojij  x8:»BAi 


•X  -OM  -la^BAl 


•asnoH  ^J^noo 


•IIBf 


•ja:^BM  oiiqn  J 


•S!^^^J:}s  3ntuado 


•[^qap  uo  ^saja^ni 


•aonoj 


•sq.n9niaAOJdnii  iBnia^uj 


•looqos 


(M<MlM(Me»(Mr-li-l'-HrHi-(rH0»>O»C'*COlfl»O-*«; 


•sasnadxa  uiB^jeo 


i-f4  lolco  cet« -*<  Hwr^       •-«<•       H* 

iOi«»o>o©o©©?o*C'«»ico'»i<'<*iftei3MTj<©jeococo 


•JOOd 


r+#Hoo  H»  ecH -««  H*  Hn  •-*» '^ '-f* 

.      .      .©iC»C©©>C©»OiC©©©©©t-l-«n<©J>>O>rt->t(rHW05e0M<Mi-i<W0 


•jjnoo 


m©ioo©io'0©»oj«©©o©c<5t-»nTj'M-*e»NCOM->*i.H<Me<5Mc<jco« 


•:j03Jta 


^c©©©oo©©o©©©©©I>©©coco©©©o;«0(^J^e'Ooo^o©©©«o^ 

t-100©0©©©»ClC«C»ClCOM©©MCOW»ft«OeOCOW  0*0*<MWCOCO'^0i 

i-lO»C<l<M(M©»(N(MO»CllM(MCCINMCOCl5CC 


t-000»©»H(MMrt(loeOI>0005©r-ICQCOTt<i«Ol-0005©r-(CJKl-<l<lfltOt-000:C 

i^ooooooooQO«oococooooDoocx30oooooooaoooooaoooaocooDooooooooooaocDa 

i-(i-(THrHr-(iHrHT-lr-i.-(THiHr-4iHi-lTHr-(r-t>-*i-lrHr-lT-trHr-lr-lrHr-lr-lr-lr-(r 

(382) 


eo  00  ,H  ■ 

O   r^   OS 


l05'*'©0(?lCO-*50>»>n»ft00300»C«OrH 
't-©t-00COt-«>a0i-l©©Ni«C<S5*er5CO® 

1—1 y-l   ■— I  1— I  I— I  tH  I— (  1— I  iH  i-l  rH 


i©ooo©»»    •mioia>0'<*'©-*>«©©© 


::^x:^^ 


«  C4  e»  <M  (M 


::^  : 


1O>OjO«5JC000000 


00  00  00 


o 


^ 


MeoeocococccoM 


:^:^, 


(M(?J(MeJ(?*e>5Ci304(» 


U)  Oi  lO  en  CD 


Ol  (M  IN  (M  OJ 


CO  CO  eo  eo  ?5  eo  e<5 


:^;:^:^:5^:^x:^^:^:^:^:^:^:^ 


m 


<M  04  «  W  !M  IN 


eow(M(j»cj(Soj(?»o»s»« 


00  -t-  .«ocooseo«rH-*Tj(  ■  •■<tir-f»o-*ooeo»050'*eo-*t-iHT»<©r-i 


^»Oieo»«co^}>n02Qoco'?^oo>-lC^co■-|'--lo^?o^^©(^JTJ^•*OT(^ao^-^-^-05oOl«^-llooo^-©eo 

171  i-H    (MtH040*!M(?»CleOO«IH!?JOJ(nOJ015QIM«W04C<JCJ<M(MC»NOJO»e»(MCOC»0*0»COeO 


1*<  ■*  «  © 


1-1  O  Oi  I 


ei>Ciiflci»woooco©eooot-T-i,-(3505t-oo-*t-«oooseocoeoTtieo«oeou5©jc4i-ii-®iO 

<  -H  rH  (M  (N  th  th  t-lc*  (Mi-ii-(i-irti-irHiHi-ii-tc}«o»<S»e»04(Mo*eoeococoeo'* 


OOi-iOJ®«5»«'^t-'Ct->«I>®®®Tt<t-«OiO>««0»OiOCOt-i003JOaot-  05  00  OSOJOOOOOrHOIMi-ieO'* 


co©QOi-i©©©i-eot-05«a«oO'*t-T*t©oot-»w«Oi-it-«35iocooo"<*'i-io»«o«eoso<ocooso4eo®(M'T 
>«-<ti-<j(i050»nio-»ncoc«eO'*Tt<iceo"5iOK5t-t-»t-ooi-ee®>Ojoio»o«tocoio«ot-i-'*'*o*»otoeeus«o 


•*«05Ct-ooos©i-i(MCOT*<iO?ob-oooi©i-i  s»,cc  •*u5®t-ooos©iHc»eO'«i»»not-oo  3i©rHe»eOTj<iocot-ao 
>o«5u5»o^Ol0^eto^o^Dt05oo50500^~^-^-l-^-t-^-^-^-^-oooooooooo^oooooaooooiO»o>05^sooo^0505 
ooooooooooooooooooaoaoooooooooooooooooaoooooooooooooooooooooaoooooooxooooaooooooooooooooo 


(383) 


"So  5? 2 
g    ft    « 


o  ©  2 

00^ 


3 


19 1; 


ill 


o  ? 


00)3 


as^ 


so2 


^rSJSa    .«Poc5!Oooooai:*oooi5o-*ssrt«t-esi-^Q-*^S'-^ooi-S5S-^ 

i-HCOO®     .»OONOSi--ICOOt»JOO:t-t-lt-CO»l-rt*CJCI5l^&rH-S-5ilCtOI-JlJ- 


Cb-*OOS     •OOOCOOO«ON05»000-*-*OOt-«QOCOS5!X)CCCO^^l^t-0«0 


go  lo  toes  ^c>f 


QOOt-QD     .C0:0T-IC0OMCX)rHl»05l;':- 2.1 5^*0=01-10500^         „ _., 

grtic-*  o-^iS-«f®&w-*3i.--c<j«cc*i-Jocog;o>noCcao54}i-a55pSr-! 

CO  CO  ■*  to  rH  t^oO  t-^O  rt^i-i^cD^t- 51  s^i -TJ^^CO  IC  i-  00  O  O  »0  in  -*000-*»0000-* 

i-Ji-Tr-l'i-r  ejr-TrH'rtNNfflN'NOllNevrNNeiOlClSCCCOCOCOClSClJCT 


&rHO-#Q-*50t-OrH4Ci— l-*O500W00>OCTO5t-iaiOW00O5««l-l-^« 

O  e*  rH  N  00  i-H  roOS  CO  CO  00  rt  CO  lO  rt  «5  i-H^O  fj  CO  n3051—  0050000rtCo55«5lC-* 

CO  0i_0^i-l^t-^t- CO_'-J_-^»£^CO  00T-<'MC>C35i550D:OOVCvli£5»fft—  J-loCt^COOOiMO^J 

;^-*-*QQOt— ll-^JlMCOJl>5^■*■*-»(•*■*M<U^^O5O5Ot-L-•00o0C6 

tH  rt  rt  51 55  55  N  (N  N  N  5i  N  »5  N  N  N  oi  ii  ei  N  Oi  N  0*  N  N  N  N  <^^  N  N  N  ^ 


S0DC005C0t-0Ju5«0O-^C0a050l-0CQlf;05l--*S} 

5ocoNcooiWC005i— iooa5i~05i-"d«oo-*aii— ICO 

5^  CO  -<1^05_0  lO^OO  rH-«**lOL—l-00C0l0O00W3r-(0iC0O 
'oQ00  0100  0o'<»'orcD'*'cO>o'ooofoeo'OrH"«Oi-r5<f 
-t-©iOCO»£5iOiSmiCCO«5c050COt*t-lr-l:-"S«OCO 


gC0COt-i-l-^C0-*'-<f-*CpXlt-i-(l~-rHt--*liNt-O5 

>»oocoi-H-*Tt<^^QO»o«oooit;oc6»5cooco-*->t<o 


.Nooor-ll-ococoaDQl^^»^5JCOo^'^^oOlelOl-coo> 

.l->O00l.0  0;C0i-lrt^C0t->0&ig00J01:-Oi-IC0-*«5 


5  00  00  00  05  *  05  < 


5?ig^§ 


NN-*§SSSSS*S*t-*ScococoSSSt-SSScoJ5>aSt-t-oSiM 


•  oooiOi— iNC0->*<io5Ot-0DasQ^Hi; 

JOOOOODOOOOOOOOOOOOOOQOOOOOODC 


.i-lr-li-l1-11-lr-l5llMT-lr-1i-Hr-lr^Me5 


51  N  IM  N  IN  C 


■"^N-^COCOlOMt-QCOODOSMlC 
.r-lC003INC6rt«»O^QCOCOr-IC 

•  -*ooco-*c»t-ocoiN3oot-c: 


§-*  CO  (M  ® -*  N -*  C 
05  op  T-l  Q  r-l  >0  lO  S 
^lOOCO^iOi-j_C»o6C 

op~ia'oi'orr4Ga co'os'rH O  IlCW5'»*i00C5t-^Q»aQO2iCCt-- 

3l3500t-O>0->HC003O  O5L-»O-<t!lCJJC0i— lOOL-fcoOOOC 

a^                  rli-lr-H-l       iH  IN  N  05  (Si  Si  CO -* -*  CO  <M  CO  CO  ■*  t 


:D-^»hO-:*rH00C 
t- 00  «5  05  O  O  l-^c 

r-^  oon'n  Q  t-^c 

)  O  t- »0  05  >5 '^  C 

I  la  US  t-  to  L-  CO  0 


C0^50-*(NQ01QOO»ncOt-5J^'-l'nr-(QO^-*-*t-»0 

C&OlN05toS»OtDt— ^^-^CfcCOpJOSlO-^^^OOQSOliOOOT— I 
>!*<^tOrHL—  05000COOOO  O^lC  CD  '^  ^i— i  tO  iC  05  Oi  "*  M^  05 
or-'t"i-^Cifl-^T--^-^-^ofr-r'-*'arcO^-H^CO^O'r^or(N  tOQcT-^r-r-*" 
««6-*COOCCO-*OOi-*COi— IOCB>--ICOJJQ>OOr-HQCOe5 
■^JOtOt'l-^CilCr-lL^tOmOr^-^^T^OOOilSNi— l-<*OOQO"^ 


S5s?s^sis^ 

s 

CO  >0 -#  00 1- *  35  c 

ii^iiiPi 

"^ 

sssgSsii 

CO 

«5  jj  iO  o  t-  to  to  t-  cooo»ra-^t-oosoo5 
t-feSst-t-SStoSt-QOoot-t-cot-to 


0500t0rot-C5r-l05Oi-l»OO0505O 


SS§§g§ 


?-*U0tpt-CCa5Qr1lNC 

ioooooOQOcccioasaSooo 


JtOJ— OOOSOrHMC 
5QOOD00O0OO0D0OG 


Is. 

■3  o. 


a  2 

§ 

^1 

2 

03  a 

« 

®  .s 

>?! 

fe  ■« 

1-1 

.«  ? 


03  O 


5  SI 


;^a 


a 

?      O      »    43 


■a  « 


^  "5 


c8  t; 

IC    1-1    -rj    ^ 


u    ;->    -^    S 


.2  o  w 

Oh   ®   a 
+3  »  3 


ja  ? 


,-  o 


S  ft3-g 


U    r-l 

3^ 


.9-& 


a^55  55 


P^    5    M    « 


(384) 


8      8 


8  ^ 


P    S     r: 


2  >S  -SS 


^  8    88  3g 


8  8 


SS 


S  -* 


8    8  88 


?i  8    8 


??  8 


8    8 


-*•* 


8  88    8 


88 


8        8 


SS 


S  3: 


S  SS 


m3 


8    ^S 


icS 


s> 


<Si 


S  3  M 


"'  *t^  eS-3  x^f^  3" 
<      |?l-j<jfL|P      pc, 


>  — -  ^ 

O   •  0  o 


C  "-5  O 

W       OH, 


*  a, 

>.a 


7rt 
.  o 

S  o  a  .2  i:  ^ 


a^a 


o  « 

■ap 

(385) 


^    5 


§§5  a: 
i  o  ^  3  o 


-?^' 


feOM-ts »  3  2 


o  « 

ap 


s  s 


s  s 


S      8 


8     8 


is 
8  ~S' 


ig  : 


8     8 


8    SS 


8    S 


8    8 


8    5 


8     8 


88 


8     8 


8  n 


8 

is 


:^OpiHq    pm    fl 


(386) 


so 


SeSSS8888 


S^r:5!S8SS8 

1-1— ICS05->*i-lt-N 


COiOt-SOOQOQ 

w*t-oo»aoooo 


00  »  »J  o  o  o 

t---U3  0COO 

ic  at5  w  30  ^H  3q_ 

t-rlt-HOO 
CO 

COOCNCOO 
NOlOi-IO 

«ggO:iO 

MoB«og    •    • 


ssss 

«Or-l       iH 

t-to 

r-tia 

got- 

is  :  : 


:« 


as 


dSga 

rSfl"?,©  >.>.^o  -i^^^-S 

S  jot;  8S  5  «  cag  g^  ogg:^ 


(387) 


s     s 


OiOiOCO 


s 

•    -co 

CO 

s 

CO 

,r^ 

s 

.s 

,  COCOOCO 


JDt-t- 

cot-t- 

tHCOtO 


TO       Sc 


5t-t- 


mSoc 


r^-^t:^-^<3  CO  l^tS  CO  SQCO 
OOCtbi-lTOTOrHMS        OO 


-^t-C0OrH050iO00TOO 

i-it-ico«o-o<Qt->''ffSQ'-i 
■«t!»oa5>ot-OOi-ii»i5c<i 

N  OJ^rH^CO  to  rt  t-^»n  S  Oi  00 
Oo'rH'cO  t-^CO  •>*  i-Tt- 1- — ^-  ' 


i  N  t-  O  'iX       >C  C 
5i-lr-lSS  T-in 


OOt- i-H  l.-TOaOINO»-*5355 
'-*Qt-t--*fr-t-^5<l05CCCO 

O  O  5l  0.&  a5,r^  05  55  CO_rt 
in'ocOrHL-Qio'-^i-^CD'TO 


io<»55t-iom-<StDo:Soo 
TO  I-  'g'50  o'ao  22  ^  S  "^  S 

TOTOOCOOSSOWlCroOsS 

ooi5^c«5o*ico«*     5o5t! 
O       TO(Mi— ii-lT-l  00 


SSiaioTOL-TOoroSS 

t— (COCOCOiOOir^-^-^TOt* 
r^Ot-TOL^50^t— COQO 
TO  S5  •*  r-<^rt^(M  lO  t- •*  O  00 


(MQOOOSTOi-HrtMOO  O 

TO^r-IOOSqjOt-t-OO  © 

^igoNooi-i«ocoi— It-  TO 

C0OMi050C0>0-*r-l  -OS 

-*  *  ■>*<  >o  >ffl  ?i_>ra  to  rt  --HH^ 

§'-* -^5-f -^'oTi-Tt; so  ; TO 

tMCO»005tOCDTO  i- 

i-l5J            rl  OS 


S§g§5S8SSS8    S 


iM  Si  in  TO  00 


5010TO 


55  O  >0  O  l-_«0  10  •iH  1-1 

L- OS  Ul  i-l'lM  i-i  to  00 -*  00 

00  L-  ^  rt  OO  •*  I- 1— 1 1-  .  i-H 

S  T-i  IN  t-^TO  5i  ^o  in  •  CO 

con-*55l-iototo  oa 

IN        r-IN        •    -tH  to 


K 


-tin 

SI'S    . 

Pd  CD 


•2Se 


■CO 

ag 

ei3  03 


3500— .+^1^   u 


^s^ 


fiPlK^lli 

l-S  O  Ph  Ps*  Q  •<  O -5  fe  fe  1-5 

(388) 


X3  flr^ 


«^S  9  fH  _osSi^ 

SS--.2£g^^o 


-2  M-2-2  o)"?  PS  »  ® 

M  3  CO  CO+J  PSf^-M+i 


S^Pn 


a  a 

+33 


ll 

m  SI 
fl'O 


38    S8 

<-iio      S-t- 

•  1-HO     •  r-ICO 


2 


S*^:'*" 


i-i^     us 

>O05        00 


o 


8  s 


A  ^  Od  TO 

.  Q  9  Od  CO 


be 


5 

3 

(C-O    . 


S  -sag 
(388) 


.zi  a>  r^  ID  ad  4^ 
-^  4)  g  ©  O  e8 


OOJ-*l-QS(NOODOO'— llfflrH 
•O5-*iHC6*t-00lOi-lCOMO5 


i-l5J-*t-Q03r-IOSlO 
latDOOmt-i-HtOt-CO 


ss 


«OCDt-NeO>ddr-li-IMr-l 


•  OJ.'-J.N.O  r-(^«0  O  «  SB 
■SS>0§OT§»       CO 


U5®       t-lC 


•  ■^  CO  -co^cows 

;  ocToo^  I  »c  T-ToTco 

gN  OSlOCgg 

"*H  CO  ^cococp 

•  Sos  .oo-*S5    . 

■  5Ji— 1  -Sect-    ■ 

;  i-Too  ;  t-^:*  t-^  : 

CO-^  ON 


(•390) 


INDEX 


Adams,  Mr.  T.  S.,  on  assess- 
ment act  of  1896,  259n. 

Administration,  form  of  mu- 
nicipal, 9,  51-54,  71,  95-99, 
202-207;  expenses  of,  71,  136, 
251;  need  of  economy  in,  368; 
under  the  new  charter,  356- 
365. 

Almshouse,  maintenance  of, 
69,  130,  241;  construction 
loans  of,  309. 

Amusements,  public,  license 
tax  on,  79. 

"  Annex,"  added  to  city,  201; 
taxation  in,  266,  370;  alleged 
cause  of  floating  debt,  333n. 

Appeal  Tax  Court,  144,  254. 

Appropriations,  budget,  98, 
205;  effect  of,  special,  330. 

Arrears,  tax,  152,  270;  see  Tax- 
ation. 

Assessment,  of  property  for 
taxation,  25,  74,  139-145,  254- 
264;  act  of  1896,  257;  escape 
of  personalty,  261;  need  of 
improved  method,  369. 

Auction  receipts  tax,  18,  27,  34, 
77;  diverted  to  state  treas- 
ury, 125,  156. 

Auditor,  appointment  of,  97; 
abolition  of  office  of,  205,  270. 

Australian  ballot,  effects  of, 
251,  346. 

Audit,  in  Baltimore  Town,  16, 
31,  44;  see  Comptroller. 

Baltimore,  outline  of  financial 
history,  1-3 ;  pre-corporate 
life,  5-50;  adiuinistration  of, 
51-54,   95-99,   203-207;   expen- 


ditures of,  55-72,  100-138, 
207-252;  revenues  of,  73-88, 
139-174,  253-303;  indebted- 
ness of,  89-94,  175-200,  304- 
349;  finances  of  1897,  3^1- 
355;  new  charter  of,  356-365; 
financial  outlook  of,  366-373. 

Baltimore  and  Ohio  Kailroad 
Company,  organization  of, 
179;  municipal  aid  to,  179- 
184,  191,  311;  dividends  upon 
stock  of,  172,  299;  "stock  or- 
ders "  of,  181;  branch  rail- 
ways of,  167;  sinking  fund 
of,  334. 

Baltimore  and  Susquehanna 
Kailroad  Company,  munici- 
pal aid  to,  184-186. 

Baltimore  Town,  establish- 
ment of,  5-8;  growth  of,  9- 
17;  expansion  of,  18-47;  in- 
corporation of,  47. 

Bank  riots,  effect  of,  157. 

Banks,  Robert  T.,  floating 
debt  revealed  by,  328. 

Bay  View  Asylum,  see  Alms- 
house. 

Board  of  Estimates,  organiza- 
tion and  powers  of,  363;  re- 
sponsibility of,  372. 

Bounty  Board,  appointment 
of,  308. 

Bounty  loans,  issue  of,  307. 

Bowie,  Oden,  effected  reduc- 
tion of  street  railway  taxes, 
280. 

Brackett,  Jeffrey  R.,  report  on 
care  of  poor,  245n. 

Bridges,  construction  and  re- 
pair of,  8,  20,  58,  106,  217. 


392 


INDEX 


Budget,  preparation  of,  53,  98, 
205;  in  the  new  charter,  363; 
larger  demands  upon,  366, 

Buildings,  care  of  municipal, 
70,  135,  240;  see  also  Alms- 
house, City  Hall,  Court 
House,  Jail. 

Carroll,  Charles,  of  CarroUton, 
lays  cornerstone  of  B.  &  O. 
E.  K.,  93. 

Channel,  ship,  to  Baltimore, 
125,  235. 

Charities,  direct  municipal,  69, 
130,  241;  subsidies  to  private 
institutions,  243. 

Charlestown,  voluntary  reve- 
nue in,  8n. 

Charter,  of  Baltimore,  origi- 
nal, 51;  modified  by  amend- 
ment, 203;  origin  and  details 
of  new,  356-365;  opportuni- 
ties under  new,  365,  369,  373. 

Charter  Commission,  New,  ap- 
pointment of,  356. 

"  Chimney  tax,"  imposition  of, 
22. 

City  Commissioners,  appoint- 
ment of,  55,  100,  209. 

City  Council,  original  form  of, 
52;  reorganization  of,  95-96; 
under  new  charter,  359. 

City  Hall,  construction  of,  135, 
250;  loans  for,  310,  318. 

"  City  Yard,"  disgraceful  con- 
dition of,  235. 

Civil  War,  local  effects  of,  201. 

Cohen,  Mr.  Mendes,  chairman 
of  Sewerage  Commission, 
216. 

Collection,  of  taxes,  29,  76,  151, 
269. 

Commissioners,  see  Town  Com- 
missioners, Special  Com.mis- 
sioners.  City  Commissioners, 
etc. 

Commissioners  for  Opening 
Streets,  appointed,  109;  re- 
organized, 218. 


Commissioners  of  Finance,  ap- 
pointed, 98;  reorganized,  194, 
205. 

Commissioners  of  Public 
Schools,  appointed,  128;  re- 
organized, 239;  under  new 
'charter,  362. 

Commissioners  of  Sinking 
Fund,  98. 

Commissioner  of  Street  Clean- 
ing, 220. 

Commissioners  of  Tax,  26,  74. 

Commissioners  of  Watch  and 
Lighting  the  City,  61. 

Composite  loans,  successive  is- 
sue of,  320;  defeat  of,  347. 

Comptroller,  appointment  of, 
204;  change  in  duties  of,  270; 
under  new  charter,  361. 

Conduits,  wire,  franchise  tax 
on,  283;  municipal  construc- 
tion of,  297,  310. 

Constables,  62;  see  also  Courts. 

Contract  system,  in  street  pav- 
ing, 102;  in  street  cleaning, 
110,  222. 

Corporate  powers,  51,  95,  203. 

Corporations,  taxation  of,  146, 
259-261,  346;  proposed  li- 
cense tax  on,  371. 

Corrections,  municipal,  131- 
133,  242;  see  also  Charities. 

County  Court,  relation  to  Bal- 
timore Towm,  6,  11,  43. 

Court  House,  rebuilding  of, 
135;  new  municipal,  250; 
loans  for,  135,  321. 

Credit,  municipal,  199,  347,  355; 
influence  of  tax  exemption 
upon,  348,  367. 

Day-labor  system,  in  street 
paving,  102,  213;  in  street 
cleaning,  110,  221. 

Debt,  of  Baltimore  Town,  31; 
origin  of  funded,  89-91; 
growth  of  funded,  175-194, 
304-321,  355;  guaranteed, 
189-193,      321-326;      floating. 


INDEX 


393 


311,  321,  326-333,  364;  admin- 
istration and  limitation  of, 
194,  345-347;  interest  on,  72, 
137,  252;  check  upon  increase 
of,  360. 

Department  of  Finance,  see 
Commissioners  of  Finance. 

Deptford  Hundred,  exempt 
from  direct  taxation,  51,  73. 

Discount,  for  prompt  tax  pay- 
ments, 154,  271,  364. 

Dogs,  license  tax  on,  79,  161, 
274n. 

Dorton,  Mr.  Frederick  T.,  sec- 
retary of  New  Charter  Com- 
mission, 357. 

Drains,  storm-water,  see  Sew- 
ers. 

Dredging,  see  Channel  and 
Harbor. 

Druid  Hill  Park,  246. 

Elections,  municipal,  251;  Su- 
pervisors of,  251. 

Electors,  of  Special  Commis- 
sioners of  Baltimore  Town, 
20;  of  Mayor  and  City  Coun- 
cil, 52. 

Electric  lighting,  cost  of,  228; 
proposed  municipal,  228. 

Electrical  Commission,  ap- 
pointment of,  297. 

Elliott,  Mr.  Thomas,  I.,  mem- 
ber of  New  Charter  Commis- 
sion, 357. 

Exemption,  from  taxation, 
145-146,  264-266;  effect  upon 
municipal  credit,  348,  371. 

Expenditures,  of  Baltimore 
Town,  15,  19,  32,  36;  of  Bal- 
timore City,  55-72,  100-138, 
208-252;  likelihood  of  in- 
creased, 367. 

Fees,  revenue  from,  83,  126, 
167,  289;  remuneration  by, 
72,  296. 

Financial  machinery,  53,  97, 
204. 


Fines,  revenue  from,  13,  22,  33, 
40,  84,  169,  290. 

Fire  Commissioners,  Board  of, 
229. 

Fire  companies,  volunteer,  63, 
116. 

Fire  protection,  expenditures 
for,  21,  25,  62,  116,  229. 

Fish  house,  municipal,  168. 

Floating  Debt,  see  Debt. 

Forfeitures,  of  lots  in  Balti- 
more Town,  7,  12;  see  also 
Fines. 

Franchises,  tax  on  street  rail- 
ways, 246,  275-285,  369,  371, 
372;  tax  on  wire  conduit, 
283;  new  charter  provisions 
relating  to,  365,  372. 

Gaither,  Mr.  George  E.,  mem- 
ber of  New  Charter  Commis- 
sion, 357. 

Gas  supply,  attempted  compe- 
tition in,  112,  213,  226;  sug- 
gested municipal  ownership 
of,  113;  possibility  of  indi- 
rect revenue  from,  373. 

General  property  tax,  assess- 
ment of,  25,  74,  139-145,  254- 
264,  369-370;  exemptions 
from,  145,  264-266;  rate  of, 
75,  198,  146-151,  267-269:  lim- 
itation of,  150,  266;  collection 
of,  29,  76,  151,  269;  see  also 
Assessment,  Exemption,  Lev- 
ies, Collection,  etc. 

Gifts,  revenue  from,  8,  73,  87, 
302. 

Gilman,  Dr.  Daniel  C,  member 
of  New  Charter  Commission, 
357. 

Guaranteed  debt,  see  Debt. 

Gunpowder  storage,  municipal 
control  of,  84, 

Gunpowder  water  supply,  231. 

Harbor,  improvement  of,  32, 
68,  123,  234;  see  also  Channel, 
Wharves  and  Wharfage. 


394 


INDEX 


Harbor  and  Kiver  Eelief 
Board,  236. 

Harbor  Board,  appointment 
of,  234. 

Harford  Eun,  loans,  319. 

Hay  scales,  municipal,  167. 

Hayes,  Hon.  Thomas  G.,  mem- 
ber of  New  Charter  Commis- 
sion, 357. 

Health  department,  expendi- 
tures for,  44,  56,  66,  120,  232. 

"  Highway  and  Bridge  Levy," 
150,  267. 

Hodges,  Mayor  James,  on 
street  cleaning  department, 
221;  on  exemption  of  manu- 
facturing plants,  265. 

Hooper,  Mayor  Alcaeus,  re- 
vival of  sinking  funds,  343. 

Horwitz  bequesi,  302n. 

Hospital,  see  Charities. 

"House  of  Eefuge,"  133. 

House  tax,  imposition  of,  41. 

Ice-boat,  operation  by  state 
and  city,  236-237. 

Immigrants,  tax  on,    159-160. 

Improvements,  loans  for  mu- 
nicipal, 320-321;  see  also  In- 
ternal Improvements. 

Indebtedness,  municipal,  89- 
91,  175-200,  304-349;  see  also 
Debt. 

Inelasticity,  of  revenue,  208, 
253,  366. 

Internal  improvements,  mu- 
nicipal aid  to,  178-193,  313- 
318,  321-326. 

Incorporation,  of  Baltimore, 
47. 

Indemnity  stock,  issued  by 
state,  157. 

Inspection,  system  of  munici- 
pal, 14. 

Inspector  of  Municipal  Build- 
ings, appointed,  249. 

Interest  on  debt,  72,  137,  252. 

Investments,  income  from  mu- 
nicipal, 172,  299. 


Jail,  expenditure  for,  131;  con- 
struction of  new,  242. 

Jones'  Falls,  dividing  line  of 
city,  56,  67,  96;  loans  for  im- 
provement of,  319. 

Jones'  Town,   8,  9. 

Joppa,  relation  to  Baltimore 
Town,  9. 

Judiciary,  see  Courts. 

Justices  of  Peace,  126;  see 
Courts. 

Know-Nothing  Party,  influ- 
ence of,  201. 

Land  tax,  imposition  of,  10. 

Latrobe,  Mayor  Ferdinand  C, 
on  street  cleaning  depart- 
ment, 221-222;  recommends 
Board  of  Fire  Commission- 
ers, 230;  recommends  cheap 
water  for  factories,  293; 
member  of  New  Charter 
Commission,  348, 

Leaseholds,  municipal  use  of, 
250;  purchase  by  sinking 
ing  funds,  298. 

Levies,  tax,  146-150,  267-269; 
significance  in  budget,  98, 
206. 

License  taxes,  78-79,  158-161, 
272-275;  on  vehicles,  28,  40, 
78,  158,  273;  on  municipal 
offices,  78-79;  on  public 
amusements,  28,  79,  158,  273; 
on  liquor  dealers,  28,  40,  160, 
274;  on  immigrants,  159;  on 
market  traders,  79,  160,  273; 
on  peddlers,  273n.;  on  poles, 
275;  collection  of,  273;  pro- 
posal of  additional,  371-372. 

Lighting,  municipal,  expendi- 
ture for,  40,  61,  112,  225;  see 
also  Gas  Supply  and  Electric 
Lighting. 

Limit,  of  direct  taxation,  147, 
150. 

Limitation,  of  indebtedness, 
194,  345-347,  358;  of  general 
property  tax,  150,  266. 


INDEX 


395 


Liquor  License  Commission- 
ers, Board  of,  251,  274, 

Liquor  license  tax,  28,  40,  160, 
274;  part  taken  by  state,  274, 
371;  proposed  increase  of, 
372. 

Loans,  early  funded,  176;  Bal- 
timore and  Ohio  Bailroad 
Company,  178-184,  311;  Bal- 
timore and  Susquehanna 
Eailroad  Company,  184-186; 
Susquehanna  Canal  Com- 
pany, 186-187;  municipal 
scrip,  188;  water,  193,  232, 
306,  312;  defence  and 
bounty,  307;  municipal 
buildings,  309,  318;  park,  246, 
310;  funding  floating  debt, 
311;  Western  Maryland  Rail- 
road Company,  313-316;  Val- 
ley Railroad  of  Virginia 
Company,  316;  Jones'  Falls, 
319;  municipal  improvement, 
320;  various,  188,  311,  321;  re- 
demption of  maturing,  344- 
345;  popular  vote  on,  346. 

Lotteries,  municipal,  22,  33,  63, 
64,  87,  172. 

Lottery  tax,  78. 

Malster,  Mayor  William  T., 
appoints  New  Charter  Com- 
mission, 356. 

Manufacturing  plants,  exempt 
from  taxation,  263,  371;  low 
water  charges  to,  293. 

Markets,  expenditures  for,  67, 
123,  233;  receipts  from,  13, 
86,  171,  296,  369;  license  tax 
for  traders  in,  79,  160,  273. 

Mayor,  indirect  election  of,  52; 
popular  election  and  ap- 
pointing power  of,  96;  under 
new  charter,  359. 

McDonogh,  John,  bequest,  174. 

Mortgage,  tax  on  income 
from,  258. 

New  charter,  see  Charter. 


Northwestern  Railroad  Com- 
pany, municipal  aid  to,  190; 
results  of  guarantee,  322. 

Offices,  municipal,  license  tax 
on,  78-79. 

Park  Commission,  appoint- 
ment of,  247;  under  new 
charter,  362. 

"  Park  tax,"  see  Franchise  tax 
on  street  railways. 

"Park  Tax  Case,"  282-283. 

Parks,  nucleus  of,  133-134;  ac- 
quisition of  imiportant,  245- 
249;  funded  loans  for,  246, 
310. 

Patapsco  River  Improvement 
Board,  236. 

Patterson  Park,  134,  246. 

Paving,  see  Streets. 

Personalty,  failure  to  assess, 
261. 

Pittsburg  and  Connellsville 
Eailroad  Company,  munici- 
pal aid  to,  190,  322. 

Poles,  license  tax  on,  275. 

Police,  establishment  of,  40; 
development  of,  61,  114; 
state  assumes  control  of, 
223. 

Police  Commissioners,  Board 
of,  223. 

Poor  relief,  see  Charities. 

Port  Wardens,  Board  of,  31- 
36,  69,  123,  234;  see  also  Har- 
bor and  Wharves. 

Powers,  corporate,  51,  95,  203. 

Pratt,  Enoch,  bequest,  302. 

Precincts  of  Baltimore,  60n. 

Property,  municipal,  income 
from,  7,  171,  298,  369. 

Property,  tax  on,  see  General 
Property  Tax. 

Pumps,  see  Water  Supply  and 
Special  Assessment. 

Putzel,  Mr.  Lewis,  member  of 
New  Charter  Commission, 
357. 


396 


INDEX 


Quarantine  hospital,  123,  233. 

Quasi-private  activities,  mu- 
nicipal income  from,  85-87, 
169-173,  290-301. 

Quasi-public  industries,  reve- 
nue from,  373;  see  Fran- 
chises. 

Eailvyays,  street,  history  of, 
245-246,  275-283;  limitations 
on  franchise  of,  276;  munici- 
pal purchase  right,  277;  tax 
on  gross  receipts  of,  280-283; 
proposed  construction  of 
branch,  166. 

Baine  bequest,  302n. 

Kate  of  taxation,  see  General 
Property  Tax. 

Eeferendum  on  funded  loans, 
346. 

"  Eeform  Bills,"  municipal, 
201. 

Beform  League,  Baltimore,  on 
assessment  of  property,  262- 
263. 

Begister,  appointment  of  ,  53; 
change  in  election  of,  97; 
duties  of,  204. 

Eepaving,  see  Streets. 

Bevenues,  of  Baltimore  Town, 
13-15,  21-30,  32-36;  of  Balti- 
more City,  73-94,  139-174, 
253-303;  inelasticity  of,  208, 
367;  need  of  additional,  368- 
373;  voluntary,  8,  12. 

Bevolutionary  War,  effects  of, 
9,  18. 

Eiots,  bank,  157. 

Boads,  see  Streets. 

*'  Boger's  Addition,  exemption 
from  taxation,  74. 

Bosewater,  Dr.  Victor,  on  spe- 
cial assessments,  24,  38. 

Schmeekebier,  Mr.  L.  F.,  on 
Know^-Nothing  party,  223n. 

Schmucker,  Mr.  Samuel  D., 
member  of  Nev7  Charter 
Commission,  357. 


Schools,  public,  expenditures 
for,  127-130,  239-241;  fund 
for,  127,  174,  240;  attendance 
fees,  168,  240;  city's  share  of 
state  taxes  for,  303,  371. 

Scrip,  municipal,  issue  of,  182, 
188. 

Securities,  taxation  of,  258- 
261,  370. 

Seligman,  Prof.  E.  K.  A.,  on 
special  assessments,  24,  38; 
on  fees,  83;  on  license  taxes, 
272. 

Sevp^ers,  construction  of  water, 
20,  57,  105,  213-217;  proposed 
system  of,  216;  license  tax 
on  private,  273. 

Side- walks,  paving  of,  57;  see 
also  Streets. 

Sinking  funds,  administration 
of,  97;  Commissioners  of,  98; 
origin  of,  196-199,  334;  neg- 
lect of,  336;  diversion  of,  338- 
342;  revival  of,  342;  consoli- 
dation of,  343;  redemptions 
from,  344;  park,  246;  water, 
294. 

Special  assessment,  for  street 
paving,  23,  80,  161,  286;  for 
street  reconstruction,  37,  81, 
162,  219,  287;  for  wells  and 
pumps,  82,  165;  for  railway 
tracks,  166;  for  sewers,  288. 

Special  Commissioners,  of 
Baltimore  Town,  18-31. 

Specific  taxes,  28,  76,  155. 

Squares,  public,  133,  245;  see 
also  Parks. 

State,  receipts  from,  88,  125, 
156,   173,  302,  303. 

*'  Stock  orders,"  of  Baltimore 
and  Ohio  Kailroad  Company, 
181. 

Street  cars,  license  tax  on,  273. 

Street  railways,  see  Bailways. 

Streets,  paving  and  repair  of, 
18,  55-59,  100-105,  209-213; 
reconstruction  of,  37,  59,  107, 
218-220;  cleaning  of,  60,  110, 


INDEX 


397 


220-222;  loans  for  paving, 
319,  320-321. 

Subsidies,  from  state,  173,  302; 
to  private  charities,  243. 

Subways,  see  Conduits. 

Superintendents  of  Streets,  60, 
110,  220-222. 

Superintendents  of  Wells  and 
Pumps,   64. 

Supervisors  of  Elections, 
Board  of,  251. 

Susquehanna  Canal  Company, 
municipal  aid  to,  184. 

Susquehanna  Railroad  Com- 
pany, municipal  aid  to,  190. 

Swan,  Mayor  Thomas,  import- 
ance of  administration  of, 
94,  304;  police  force  organ- 
ized by,  223;  fire  department 
under,  229;  franchise  tax  on 
street  railways,  245,  275,  279. 

Tax  Commission,  of  Baltimore, 
212.  263;  of  Maryland,  260- 
261;  of  Massachusetts,  272. 

Taxation,  of  land,  18,  20;  of 
auction  receipts,  18,  27,  34, 
77,  125,  156;  of  general  prop- 
erty, 25-27,  73-76,  139,  155, 
253-272;  of  houses,  41;  of  li- 
censes, 78-79,  158-161,  272- 
275;  of  lotteries,  78;  of  mort- 
gages, 258;  of  securities,  258- 
261,  370;  specific,  28,  76,  155; 
arrears  of,  152,  270;  limits  of 
direct,  147;  see  also  Auction 
Receipts  Tax,  General  Prop- 
erty Tax,  License  Taxes,  etc. 

Telephone  company,  franchise 
tax  on,  283,  285. 

Text  books,  state  tax  for  free, 
303. 

Tonnage  duty,  see  Wharfage 
receipts. 

Town  Commissioners,  of  Bal- 
timore, 6,  9,  36. 

Treasurer,  city,  appointment 
of,  53. 

Union  Railroad  Company,  mu- 
nicipal aid  to,  322-323. 


Vaccine  physicians,  122. 

Valley  Railroad  Company,  mu- 
nicipal aid  to,  316. 

Vansant,  Comptroller  Joshua, 
services  of,  331. 

Vehicles,  specific  tax  on,  28, 
40,  76,  78,  155,  158,   273. 

Voluntary  revenue,  see  Gifts 
and  Subsidies. 

War,  local  effects  of  Revolu- 
tionary, 9,  18;  of  War  of 
1812,  49,  90;  of  Civil,  201. 

Wardens,  Board  of  Port,  31- 
36,  69,  123,  234. 

Warner,  Prof.  Amos  G.,  on 
public  subsidies  to  private 
charters,  244n. 

Watch,  see  Police. 

Water  supply,  by  wells  and 
pumps,  21,  25,  63;  municipal 
conduct  of,  118-120,  193,  231; 
revenue  from,  173,  290-295, 
369;  funded  debt  for,  193, 
232,  306,  312;  sinking  fund 
for,  294;  tax  for,  91;  by  Bal- 
timore Water  Company,  65. 

Wells,  see  Water  Supply.  * 

Western  Maryland  Railroad 
Company,  organization  of, 
324;  municipal  aid  to,  311, 
313-316,  324-326;  investiga- 
ting commission  of,  301n.; 
city's  interest  unproductive, 
300;  proposed  disposition  of 
city's  interest,  371;  relation 
to  sinking  fund,  338-342. 

Wharves,  municipal  expendi- 
tures for,  32,  68,  124,  234;  re- 
ceipts from,  68,  85,  169,  295, 
369. 

Whyte,  Mayor  Wm.  Pinkney, 
recommends  free  water,  295; 
member  of  New  Charter 
Commission,  357. 

York  and  Cumberland  Rail- 
road Company,  municipal 
aid  to,  322. 


JOHNS  HOPKINS  UNIVERSITY  STUDIES 

IN 

Historical  and  Political  Science. 

Herbert  B.  Adams,  Editor. 

FIRST  SERIES.— Local  Institutions.— $4.00. 

I.  Anintroductlonto  American  Institutional  History.  By  E.  A.  FREEMAN.   25cent$. 

II.  The  Germanic  Origin  of  New  England  Towns.     By  H.  B.  ADAMS.    50  cents. 

III.  Iiocal    Government   in   Illinois.     By  Albert  Shaw.— I^ocal   Government   in 
Pennsylvania.     By  E.  R.  L.  GoULD.    30  cents. 

IV.  Saxon  Tithingmen  in  America.    By  H.  B.  Adams.    50  cents. 

V.  liOcal  Government  in  Michigan,  and  the  Northvrest.    By  E.  W.  Bbmis.    25  cents. 

VI.  Parish  Institutions  of  Maryland.    By  Edward  Ingle.    40  cents. 
TTI.    Old  Maryland  Manors.    By  JOHN  HBM3I.ET  JOHNSON.    30  cents. 
VIII.    Norman  Constables  in  America.    By  H.  B.  ADAMS.    50  cents. 

IX-X.    Tillage  Commnnities  of  Cape  Ann  and  Salem.    By  H.  B.  ADAMS.    50  cents. 

XI.  The  Genesis  of  a  New  England  State.    By  A.  JOHNSTON.    30  cents. 

XII.  IiOcal  Government  and  Schools  in  South  Carolina.   By  B.  J.  Rahagb.   40  cents. 

SECOND  SERIES. — Institutions  and  Economics. — $4.00. 

I-II.    Methods  of  Historical  Study.    By  H.  B.  ADAMS.    50  cents. 

III.  The  Past  and  the  Present  of  Political  Kconomy.    By  R.  T.  Elt.    35  cents. 

IV.  Samuel  Adams,  The  Man  of  the  Tow^n  Meeting.    By  James  K.  Hosmer.   35  cents. 
T-VI.    Taxation  in  the  United  States.    By  Henry  Carter  Adams.    50  cents. 

Vtl.    Institutional  Beginnings  in  a  AVestern  State.     By  Jesse  Mact.    25  cents. 
VIII-IX.    Indian  Money  in  New^  England,  etc.    By  William  B.  Wbeden.    50  cents. 

X.  Tovrn  and  County  Government  in  the  Colonies.  By  E.  Channinq.   50  cents. 

XI.  Rudimentary  Society  among  Boys.    By  J.  Hbmsley  Johnson.    50  cents. 

XII.  liand  Liavrs  of  Mining  Districts.     By  C.  H.  Shinn.    50  cents. 

THIRD  SERIES. — Maryland,  Virginia  and  Washington — $4.00. 

I.    Maryland's  Influence  upon  Land  Cessions  to  the  IT.  S.    By  H.  B.  ADAMS.    75  cents. 

II-III.    Virginia  Local  Institutions.    By  E.  Ingle.    75  cents. 

IV.    Recent  American  Socialism.    By  RiCHARD  T.  Elt.    50  cents. 

V-VI- VII.    Maryland  Local  Institutions.    By  Lewis  W.  Wilhelm.    $1.00. 

Vm.    The  Influence  of  the  Proprietors  in  Founding  New^  Jersey.    By  A.  Scoirr. 

25  cents. 
IX-X.    American  Constitutions.    By  Horace  Davts.    50  ceTits. 
XI-XII.    The  City  of  Washington.    By  J.  A.  Porter.    50  cents. 

FOURTH  SERIES— Municipal  Government  and  Land  Tenure. — $3.50. 

I.    Dutch  Tillage  Communities  on  the  Hudson  River.    By  I.  Eltino.    50  cents. 
II-III.    Tovrn  Government  in  Rhode  Island.    By  W.  E.  FOSTER.— The  Narragansett 
Planters.    By  Edward  Channinq.    50  cents. 

IV.  Pennsylvania  Boroughs.    By  William  P.  Holcomb.    SO  cents. 

V.  Introduction  to  the  Constitutional  and  Political  History  of  the  States.    By 

J.  F.  Jameson.    50  cents. 

VI.  The  Puritan  Colony  at  Annapolis,  Maryland.    By  D.  R.  RANDALL.    50  cents. 
VII- VIII-IX.    The  Land  Question  in  the  United  States.    By  S.  Sato.    $1.00. 

X.    Town  and  City  Government  of  New  Haven.    By  C.  H.  Levermore.    50  cents. 
XI-XII.    Laud  System  of  the  New  Bngland  Colonies.    By  M.  Egleston.    50  cent* 


FIFTH  SERIES.— Municipal  Government,  History  and  Politics. — $3.50. 
I-II.    City  Government  of  Philadelphia.    By  E.  P.  Ai,iiiNSONand  B.  Penrosk.  50  cents. 

III.  City  Government  of  Boston.    By  James  M.  Buqbee.    25  cents. 

IV.  City  Government  of  St.  JLoulg.    By  Marshall  S.  Snow.    25  cents. 
V-VI.    liOcal  Government  In  Canada.    By  JOHN  GEORGE  BOURINOT.    50  cents. 

VII.  Influence  of  War  of  1S13  upon  the  American  Union.  By  N.  M.  BUTLEB. 
25  cents. 

VIII.  Notes  on  the  Lilterature  of  Charities.    By  Herbert  B.  Adams.    25  cents. 

IX.  Predictions  of  Hamilton  and  De  Tocquevllle.    By  James  Bryce.   25  cents. 

X.  The  Study  of  History  In  England  and  Scotland.    By  P.  Fredericq.  25  cents. 

XI.  Seminary  Iiibraries  and  University  Extension.    By  H.  B.  Adams.    25  cents. 

XII.  European  Schools  of  History  and  Politics.    By  A.  D.  White.    25  cents. 

SIXTH  SERIES — The  History  of  Co-operation  in  the  United  States.— $3.50. 

SEVENTH  SERIES.— Social  Science,  Education,  Government $3.50. 

I.    Arnold  Toynbee.    By  F.  C.  Montague.    50  cents. 

II-III.    Municipal    Government   in    San  Francisco.    By  Bernard  MoSES.    50  cents. 

IV.    The  City  Governn»ent  of  Nevr  Orleans.    By  Wm.  W.  Howe.    25  cents. 

V-VI.    English  Culture  In  Virginia.    By  William  P.  Trent.    $1.00. 

VII-VIII-IX.    The  River  Towns  of  Connecticut.     By  Charles  M.  Andrews,    f  1.00. 

X-XI-XII.     Federal  Government  in  Canada.    By  .TOHN  G.  BOURINOT.    $1.00. 

EIGHTH  SERIES.— History,  Politics  and  Education.— $3.50. 
I-II.    The  Beginnings  of  American  Nationality.     By  A.  W.  Small.    $1.00. 

III.  Local  Government  in  Wisconsin.    By  D.  E.  Spencer.    25  cents. 

IV.  Spanish  Colonization  in  the  Southvtrest.    By  F.  W.  Blackmar.    50  cents. 
V-VI.    The  Study  of  History  in  Germany  and  France.    By  P.  Fredericq.    $1.00. 
VII-VIII-IX.    Progress  ofthe  Colored  People  of  Maryland.  By  J.  R.  Brackbtt.  $1.00. 
X.    The  Study  of  History  in  Belgium  and  Holland.    By  P.  Fredericq.    50  cents. 
XI-XII.    Seminary  Notes  on  Recent  Historical  Literature.    By  H.  B.  ADAMS,  J.  M. 

Vincent,  W.B.  Scaife,  and  others.    50  cents. 

NINTH  SERIES.— Education,  History,  Politics,  Social  Science.— $3.50. 

I-II.  Government  and  Administration  of  the  United  States.  By  W.  W.  WiL- 
LOUGHBY  and  W.  F.  Willoughby.    75  cents. 

Ill- IV.  University  Education  in  Maryland.  By  B.  C.  Steiner.  The  Johns  Hopkina 
University  (1876-1891).     By  D.  G.  GiLMAN.    50  cents. 

V-VI.  Development  of  Municipal  Unity  in  the  Lombard  Communes.  By  Wil- 
liam K.  Williams.    50  cents. 

VII-VIII.    Public  Lands  ofthe  Roman  Republic.  By  A.  STEPHENSON.    76  cents. 

IX.  Constitutional  Development  of  Japan.    By  T.  Iyenaga.    50  cents. 

X.  A  History  of  Liberia.    By  J.  H.  T.  McPherson.    50  cents. 

XI-XII.    The  Indian  Trade  in  VlTlsconsln.    By  F.  J.  Turner.    50  cents. 

TENTH  SERIES.— Church  and  State  :  Columbus  and  America $3.50. 

I.    The  Bishop  HIH  Colony.    By  Michael  A.  Mikkelsen.    50  cents. 

II-III.    Church  and  State  in  NevK  England.    By  Paul  E.  Lauer.    50  cents. 

IV.    Church  and  State  in  Maryland.     By  GEORGE  Petrie.    50  cents. 

V-VI.    The    Relleious    Development   In    the    Province    of  North    Carolina.     By 

Stephen  B.  Weeks.    50  cents. 
Til.    Maryland's  Attitude  In  the  Struggle  for  Canada.  By  John  W.  Black.  50  cents. 
VIII-IX.    The  Quakers  in  Pennsylvania.    By  A.  C.  Appleoarth.    75  cents. 
X-XI.  Columbus  and  his  Discovery  of  America.  By  H.  B.  Adams  and  H.  WOOD.  50  cents. 
XII.    Causes  of  the  American  Revolution.    By  J.  A.  Woodburn.    50  cents. 

ELEVENTH  SERIES.— Labor,  Slavery,  and  Self-Government — $3.50. 

I.  The  Social  Condition  of  Labor.    By  E.  R.  L.  Gould.    50  cents. 

II.  The  AVorld's  Representative  Assemblies  of  To-Day.     By  E.  K.  Alden.    50  cents. 
III-IV.    The  Negro  in  the  District  of  Columbia.    By  Edward  Ingle.    $1.00. 
V-VI.    Church  and  State  in  North  Carolina.    By  Stephen  B.  Weeks.    50  cents. 
VII-VIII.    The  Condition  ofthe  AVestern  Farmer  as  illustrated  by  the  economte 

history  of  a  Nebraska  township.    By  A.  F.  Bentley.    $1.00. 
IX-X.    History  of  Slavery  in  Connecticut.    By  BERNARD  C.  Steiner.    75  cents. 
XI-XII.    Local  Government  in  the  South  and  Southwest.    By  Edward  W.  Bbmis 

and  others.    $1.00. 


TWELFTH  SERIES.— Institutional  and  Economic  History.— $3.50. 

I-H.    The  Cincinnati  Southern  Ratlvray.    By  J.  H.  HOLliANDER.    $1.00. 

III.  Constitutional  Beginnings  ot  North  Carolina.    By  J.  S.  Bassett.    50  cents. 

IV.  The  Struggle  of  Protestant  Dissenters  for  Religious  Toleration  In  Virginia. 
By  H.  R.  McIlwainb.    50  cents. 

V-VI-VII.    The  Carolina  Pirates  and  Colonial  Commerce.    By  S.  C.  HuGHSON.    $1.00. 
VIII-IX.   History  of  Representation  and  Suffrage  in  Mass.  By  G.  H.  Haynes.  50fient8. 
X.    Knglish  Institutions  and  the  American  Indian.    By  J.  A.  Jahbs.    25  cents. 
XI-XII.    The  International  Beginnings  of  the  Congo  Free  State.    By  J.  S.  RezysS. 
50  cents. 

THIRTEENTH  SERIES South  Carolina,  Maryland,  Virginia.- $3.50. 

I-II.    Government  of  the  Colony  of  South  Carolina.    By  E.  L.  Whitney.  75  cents. 
III-IV.    Early  Relations  of  Maryland  and  Virginia.  By  J.  H.  Latane.    50  cents. 
T.    The  Rise  of  the  Bicameral  System  in  America.    By   T.  F.  MORAN.    50  ce7it8. 
VI- VII.    "White  Servitude  in  the  Colony  of  Virginia.  By  J.  C.  Ballagh.  50  cents. 
Tin.    The  Genesis  of  California's  First  Constitution.    By  R.  D.  Hunt.    50  cents. 

IX.  Benjamin  Franklin  as  an  Kconomlst.    By  W.  A.  Wetzel.    50  cents. 

X.  The  Provisional  Government  of  Maryland.    By  J.  A.  Silver.  50  cents. 

XI-XII.    Government  and  Religion  of  the  Ta.  Indians.    By  S.  R.  Hendren.   50  cents. 

FOURTEENTH  SERIES.— Baltimore,  Slavery,  Constitutional  History — $3.50. 

I.  Constitutional  History  of  Hawaii.    By  Henry  E.  Chambers.    25  cents. 

II.  City  Government  of  Baltimore.    By  Thaddeus  P.  Thomas.    25  cents. 

III.  Colonial  Origins  of  New  England  Senates.    By  F.  L.  RiLEY.    50  ce7tts. 
IV-T.    Servitude  in  the  Colony  of  North    Carolina.    By  J.  S.  Bassett.    50  cents. 
VI- VII.    Representation  in  Virginia.    By  J.  A.  C.  Chandler.    50  cents. 

VIII.  History  of  Taxation  in  Connecticut  (1636-1776).    By  F.  R.  JONES.    50  ce7tts. 
IX-X.    A  Study  of  Slavery  in  Ne-«v  Jersey.    By  Henry  S.  Cooley.    50  cents. 
XI-XII.    Causes  of  the  Maryland  Revolution  of  1689.    By  F.  E.  SPARKS.    50  cents. 

FIFTEENTH   SERIES American  Economic  History. — $3.00. 

I-II.    The  Tobacco  Industry  in  Virginia  since  1860.    By  B.  W.  Arnold.    50  cents. 
III-IV- V.    Street  Railway  System  of  Philadelphia.    By  F.  W.  Speirs.    Cloth,  $1.00. 
VI.      Daniel  Raymond.     By  C.  P.  Neill.    50  C67its. 

VII -VIII.    Economic  History  of  Baltimore  and  Ohio  R.  R.    By  M.  Reizenstein. 
50  cents. 

IX.  The  South  American  Trade  of  Baltimore.    By  F.  R.  RuTTER.    50  cents. 
X-XI.    State  Tax  Commissions  in  the  U.  S.     By  J.  W.  Chapman.    50  cents. 
XII.    Tendencies  in  American  Economic  Thought.    By  S.  Sherwood.    25  cents. 

SIXTEENTH  SERIES.-Anglo-American  Relations  and  SouthernHistory.-$3.oo. 

I-IV.    Neutrality   of  the  Anterican  Lakes    and   Anglo-American   Relations.    By 
J.  M.  Callahan.    $1.50. 

V.  IVest  Florida  and  Its  Relation  to  the  Historical  Cartography  of  the  United 

States.    By  H.  E.  Chambers.    25  cents. 

VI.  Anti-Slavery  Iieaders  of  North  Carolina.     By  J.  S.  BASSETT.    50  cents. 

VII.  Life  and  Administration  of  Sir  Robert  Eden.     By  B.  C.  Steinbr.    $1.00. 

VIII.  The  Transition  of  North  Carolina  from  a  Colony  to  a  Commonwealtlt. 
By  E.  W.  Sikes. 

XII.    Jared  Sparks  and  Alexis  De  Tocqueville.    By  H.  B.  Adams.    25  cents.         ' 

SEVENTEENTH  SERIES.— 1899— Subscription,  $3.00. 

I-II-III.    History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland.     By  A.  C.  Bryan.    $1.00. 

IV-V.     History  of  the   Know-Nothing   Party  in   Maryland.    By  L.  F.  SCHMECKB- 

BiER.    75  cents. 
History  of  Slavery  in  North  Carolina.    By  J.  S.  Bassett. 
History  of  Slavery  in  Virginia.     By  J.  C.  Ballagh. 
The  Labadist  Colony  in  Maryland.     By  B.  B.  J4.MES. 
The  Separatists  of  Zoar.    By  George  B.  Landis. 

Early  Development  of  Chesapeake  &  Ohio  Canal  Project.     By  Gboboe  W.  Ward. 
The  Admission  of  low^a  into  the  Union.     By  J.  A.  James. 
The  Colonial  Executive  Prior  to  the  Restoration.     By  P.  L.  Kaye. 
The  History  of  Suffrage  in  Virginia.    By  J.  A.  C.  Chandler. 


The  Johns  Hopkins  Press, 

Baltimore,  Md. 


Extra  Volumes  of  Studies 

HISTORICAL  AND  POLITICAL  SCIENCE. 

The  Republic  of  New   Hayen.     By  Charles   H.    Lkvbkmore, 

Ph.  D.     343  pages.     8vo.     Cloth.     $2.00. 
Philadelphia,    1681-1887.    By  Edward  P.  Allinson,  A.  M.,  and 

Boies  Penrose,  A.  B.     444  pages.     8vo.     Cloth.    $3.00. 
Baltimore  and  the  Nineteenth  of  April,  1861.     By  G^eorob 

William  Brown,  Chief  Judge  of  the  Supreme  Bench  of  Baltimore,  and 

Mayor  of  the  City  in  1861.     176  pages.     8vo.     Cloth.     $1.00. 

liOcal  Constitutional  History  of  the  United  States.    By 

George  B.  Howard,  Ph.  D.    Volume  1. — Development  of  the  Township, 
Hundred  and  Shire.     542  pages.      8vo.     Cloth.     $3.00.     Volume  II.— In 
preparation. 
The  Negro  in  Maryland.    By  Jeffrey  R.  Brackett,  Ph.  D.    270 
pages.     8vo.    Cloth.     $3.00. 

The   Supreme   Court   of   the   United    States.      By  W.  W. 

WiLLOUGHBY,  Ph.  D.     124  pages.     8vo.     Cloth.    $1.35. 

The  Intercourse  between  the  U.  S.  and  Japan.    By  Inazo 

(Ota)  NiTOBE,  Ph.  D.     198  pages.     8vo.     Cloth.     $1.35. 

State  and  Federal  GoTernment  in  Switzerland.  By  John 
Martin  Vincent,  Ph.  D.     335  pages.     8vo.    Cloth.    $1.50. 

Spanish  Institutions  of  the  Southwest.  By  Frank  W.  Black- 
mar,  Ph.  D.     380  pages.     8vo.     Cloth.     $3.00. 

An  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  the  Constitution.    By 

Morris  M.  Cohn.     250  pages.     8vo.     Cloth.     $1.50. 
The  Old  English  Manor.     By  C.  M.  Andrews,  Ph.  D.    380  pages. 

8vo.    Cloth.     $1.50. 
America:   Its  Geographical  History,  1492-1892.    By  Walter 

B.  ScAiPE,  Ph.  D.     176  pages.     8vo.    Cloth.    $1.50. 

Florentine  liife  during  the  Renaissance.  By  Walter  B. 
ScAiFE,  Ph.  D.     356  pages.     8vo.     Cloth.     $1.50. 

The  Southern  Quakers  and  Slavery.  By  Stephen  B.  Weeks, 
Ph.  D.     414  pages.     8vo.     Cloth.    $3.00. 

Contemporary  American  Opinion  of  the  French  Revo- 
lution.   By  C.  D.  Hazen.     335  pages.    8to.     Cloth.     $2,00. 

Industrial  Fxperiments  in  the  British  Colonies  of  North 
America.     By  Eleanor  L.  Lord.     164  pages.     8vo.    Cloth.     $1.25. 

State  Aid  to  Higher  ^Education:  A  Series  of  Addresses  at  the 
Johns  Hopkins  University.     100  pages.     8vo.     Cloth.     $1.00. 

Irrigation  in  Utah.    By  C.  Brough.    328  pages.    8vo.    Cloth.    $2.00. 

Financial  History  of  Baltimore.  By  J.  H.  Hollander,  Ph.  D. 
In  press. 

Studies  in  State  Taxation.  By  members  of  the  Johns  Hopkins 
University.     Edited  by  J.  H.  Hollander,  Ph.D.     In  press. 


The  extra  volumes  are  sold  at  reduced  rates  to  regular  subscribers  to  the 
"Studies." 

The  set  of  sixteen  (regular)  series  is  now  offered,  uniformly  bound  in 
cloth,  for  library  use,  for  $48,  and  including  subscription  to  the  current 
(seventeenth)  series,  for  $51.00. 

The  fifteen  series,  with  eighteen  extra  volumes,  will  be  sold  for  $73.00. 

All  business  communications  should  be  addressed  to  THE  JOHNS  HOP- 
KINS PRESS,  Baltimore,  Maryland. 


3X53 
63  H4 


THE  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Santa  Barbara 


~1 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW. 


fiOm-3,'68  (H924288 )  9482 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


A     000  814  667     2 


